Guidelines To Peer Reviewers

Review by a minimum of two peers is essential to scholarly publishing. These guidelines were written to assist the peer reviewers and provide an overview of ethical considerations. By reading these guidelines, reviewers may be able to discover solutions to the majority of their questions and receive directions on how to finish a peer review report in a comprehensive and timely manner.

In the event that you have any further questions, please e-mail the editor at editor@gjpb.de

Purpose of Review:

Utilize your professional skills to assist authors in improving their manuscripts.
Assisting in the upkeep of an intense, thorough peer-review process that ultimately results in publishing papers of a high grade.
To bring to the author's attention any different kinds of literature that might offer relevant comparisons or clarifications regarding an approach.

Guidelines

Each submission sent to GJPB is evaluated by two panels of anonymous reviewers (double-blind peer-review process). Before agreeing to evaluate a manuscript, reviewers should consider the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, and they should continue to do so throughout the peer-review process.
Once the reviewer has received a request for peer review, the peer reviewers are required to react in a timely way, mainly if they are unable to complete the review, in order to prevent unduly delaying the review process.
Reviewers from other academic institutions are obligated to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the contents of the manuscripts.
The peer-review remarks should not be harsh or insulting in any way, but rather they should be objective and constructive.
Consult the journal's Instructions for Authors to determine whether or not the manuscript qualifies the journal's criteria for submission (Journal Guidelines).
Complete the review and highlight the relative merits and weaknesses of the paper by putting your comments onto the online peer-review platform once you have done so.
After you have finished reading the manuscript and have made your evaluation of its overall quality, you are obligated to give the following publication recommendation to the editor:

Accept: if the manuscript, in its current form, is of a quality that makes it appropriate for publishing.
Revisions: whether or not the work requires just minor/major adjustments before it can be accepted for
publication. Please include a list of the changes that you suggest should be made.
Reject: if the manuscript is not fit for this journal or if it needs too many adjustments to be considered.

It is essential to provide specific feedback that can be communicated to the authors to collect relevant explanations on any unclear points and encourage additional elaboration.
When the technical meaning is unclear, it will be helpful if you correct the English.
Confirm whether the manuscript's content is relevant enough to justify its length; if you consider shortening, it is helpful to the author(s) if you can specify where to minimize it.
After the comments have been uploaded, you will be able to send them to the editor. The editor will then forward those comments to the author(s) so that they can make any necessary corrections.
In the event that you are unable to submit your assessment on a manuscript within the stipulated amount of time, please inform the editor as soon as possible so that the process of refereeing can continue without delay.
Bring to the attention of the editors any potential conflicts of interest that could have an impact on the manuscript that is currently being reviewed.