Peer Review Process

Our Peer Review

At Globalmeetx Journals, peer review is the central mechanism by which we maintain scientific integrity, advance knowledge, and ensure that work we publish is robust, reproducible, and useful to the scholarly community. Our peer review philosophy is guided by four interlocking commitments:

Equitable & Impartial Evaluation (Single-anonymized model)

We follow a single-anonymized (single-blind) review policy in which reviewers' identities are concealed from authors while authors' names and affiliations are visible to reviewers. This approach is chosen to reduce retaliatory concerns and encourage candid critique while enabling reviewers to evaluate the manuscript in the context of the authors' prior work. Editors actively monitor for potential bias arising from institutional or personal factors and will reassign reviewers or seek additional opinions when bias is suspected.

Development-Focused Assessment

Peer review at Globalmeetx is constructive: Reviewers are asked not only to judge suitability for publication but also to provide actionable, evidence-based guidance that helps authors improve clarity, methodology, analysis, and interpretation. Reviews should be formative aimed at strengthening the scholarly contribution rather than only rejecting or endorsing it.

Rigor, Quality & Subject Expertise

Every manuscript is assessed by reviewers with demonstrable expertise in the manuscript's domain. We require reviewers to evaluate methodological rigor, appropriateness of study design, statistical or analytical methods, completeness of reporting (including adherence to relevant reporting guidelines), and the plausibility of conclusions in light of the data.

Transparency & Author Support

Editorial decisions are accompanied by clear rationales and, where appropriate, annotated reviewer reports and editorial commentary. We aim for predictable timelines and open lines of communication, so authors understand the reasons behind decisions and the steps required for revision.

The Globalmeetx Peer Review Workflow

To ensure consistent, timely, and fair review, our editorial workflow proceeds through seven stages:

Step 2 --- Assignment to Editor

A Section or Handling Editor with relevant subject expertise is appointed. Their responsibilities include selecting reviewers, managing timelines, adjudicating reviewer disagreements, and issuing the provisional decision. The editor also ensures ethical compliance and that reviewer comments are constructive and non-defamatory.

Step 3 --- Reviewer Selection

We aim to invite a minimum of two independent reviewers for original research and at least one reviewer for short/brief reports depending on the manuscript type. Selection criteria include:

• Relevant subject-matter expertise (e.g., methodologists for complex statistics)
• Recent publications in the field
• Geographic and institutional diversity when possible
• Lack of conflicts of interest with authors or the research
• Prior reviewing performance (timeliness and quality of reviews)
• Editors may invite additional reviewers for complex or interdisciplinary manuscripts.

Step 4 --- Single-Anonymized Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts against standardized criteria (see Section 2.2). They submit:

• Confidential comments to the editor (which may include evaluation of publication priority, ethical concerns, or details that should not be shared with authors);
• Constructive comments to authors that explain strengths and weaknesses and give concrete suggestions for improvement.
• Reviewers are asked to grade or score core manuscript elements (e.g.,originality, methods, clarity) and to identify essential vs. desirable revisions.

Step 5 --- Editorial Decision

Taking reviewer recommendations and their own assessment into account, the editor issues one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is approved for publication, subject only to minor copyediting or proof corrections.
• Minor Revision: Changes requested are limited in scope and can be addressed in a single round without additional peer review.
• Major Revision: Substantive changes are needed (e.g., additional analyses, clarification of methodology); the revised manuscript may return to one or more reviewers.
• Reject: Manuscript is not suitable for publication due to fundamental flaws in design, analysis, or relevance.

Every decision is accompanied by a structured editorial letter that synthesizes reviewer input and clearly enumerates required changes.

Step 6 --- Author Revision & Resubmission

Authors must submit:

• A point-by-point response document aligned to reviewer comments
• A revised manuscript with changes tracked and a clean version
• Any supplementary materials (additional data, code, or documentation) requested by reviewers.

Editors assess whether the authors' responses and revisions adequately address concerns. Major revisions may be re-sent to reviewers for verification.

Step 7 --- Final Acceptance & Publication

Upon acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to production (copyediting, typesetting, proofing). Authors review proofs and confirm final corrections. After final sign-off, the article is published and indexed in relevant databases. Any post-publication corrections follow the journal's corrections and retractions policy.