Peer Review Process
Review Model & Principles
GMR uses a double-blind peer review model. This means:
- Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
- Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
- All submissions must be fully anonymized before review — no author names, affiliations, self-identifying citations, or acknowledgments.
- Reviewers are selected based on subject-matter expertise and are external to the editorial team.
Guiding Principles: All editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit — originality, methodological rigor, theoretical contribution, and practical relevance — without regard to the authors' nationality, ethnicity, gender, institutional affiliation, or political orientation.
Stages of the Peer Review Process
Every manuscript passes through the following stages from submission to final decision:
Manuscript Submission
The corresponding author submits the manuscript through GMR's OJS platform, along with the required supplementary files: Title Page (with author details, CRediT statements, competing interests, and AI disclosure), Cover Letter, and the anonymized Main Manuscript.
Via OJS PortalEditorial Desk Screening
The Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor conducts an initial assessment within 3–5 working days to evaluate:
- Alignment with GMR's focus and scope
- Compliance with Author Guidelines and formatting requirements
- Completeness of submission (all required files present)
- Anonymization for double-blind review
- Minimum scholarly quality threshold
Desk Rejection: Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum requirements may be returned to the author at this stage without external peer review. Common reasons: out of scope, incomplete submission, poor anonymization, or fundamental methodological flaws.
Plagiarism Check
All manuscripts that pass the desk screening undergo a plagiarism check using Turnitin/iThenticate. The maximum acceptable similarity index is ≤ 20% (excluding references and quotations). Manuscripts exceeding this threshold are returned or rejected.
1–3 Working DaysReviewer Assignment
The handling editor selects a minimum of two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are screened for potential competing interests. Reviewers who have collaborated with the authors within the last 5 years, share the same institution, or have any financial or personal interest are excluded.
3–7 Working DaysDouble-Blind Peer Review
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript using GMR's structured Reviewer Guidelines and the Peer Review Evaluation Form, which consists of 27 evaluation items across five sections:
A. Scientific Evaluation
6 scored criteria: Originality & Novelty (20%), Theoretical Foundation (15%), Methodological Rigor (25% — CRITICAL), Data Analysis & Results (20%), Practical Implications (15%), Writing Quality (5%).
B. Compliance Checks
4 items (Yes/No): Double-blind compliance, AI usage declaration, references adequacy, and ethics & research integrity.
C. Overall Assessment
4 dimensions scored 1–5: Overall scientific quality, contribution to management theory, practical/policy impact, and suitability for GMR readership.
D. Recommendation & E. Comments
Recommendation (Accept / Minor Revisions / Major Revisions / Reject) plus structured narrative comments: Strengths, Major Issues, Minor Issues, Actionable Suggestions.
Scoring Scale (1–5): 5 = Outstanding — exceeds international standards; 4 = Strong — meets GMR standards; 3 = Adequate — acceptable if revised; 2 = Weak — below standard; 1 = Unacceptable — fundamental flaws.
Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewers' evaluations, the handling editor makes one of the following decisions:
Accept
< 5% of submissions. Exceptional work ready for publication with minimal copy-editing changes only.
Minor Revisions
Strong manuscript with small, identifiable issues. No major reanalysis or restructuring required. Authors given 14 days to revise.
Major Revisions
Significant potential but requires substantial improvements. Revised manuscript will undergo re-review. Authors given 30 days to revise.
Reject
Fatal methodological flaws, lack of contribution, out of scope, or ethical concerns not remediable through revision.
Revision & Resubmission
If revisions are required, the author must submit:
- A revised manuscript with changes clearly highlighted (e.g., tracked changes or colored text).
- A point-by-point response letter addressing each reviewer's comment, specifying what was changed and where.
Revised manuscripts for minor revisions are typically assessed by the editor. Major revisions are sent back to the original reviewers or to new reviewers for re-evaluation.
14–30 DaysFinal Decision
After re-review (if applicable), the editor makes a final decision. Only manuscripts that satisfy all scientific, ethical, and formatting requirements are accepted. A maximum of two rounds of major revision is permitted. If the manuscript remains unsatisfactory after the second round, it will be rejected.
Copyediting, Proofreading & Publication
Accepted manuscripts proceed through copyediting and typesetting. Authors receive galley proofs for final approval. Published articles are assigned a DOI via Crossref and made freely available under the CC BY 4.0 license with no embargo.
7–14 Working DaysTimeline Overview
GMR strives to maintain an efficient and transparent editorial timeline:
| Stage | Target Duration |
|---|---|
| Desk Screening | 3–5 working days |
| Plagiarism Check | 1–3 working days |
| Reviewer Assignment | 3–7 working days |
| Peer Review | 21–28 days |
| Editorial Decision | 5–7 days after reviews received |
| Author Revision (Minor) | 14 days |
| Author Revision (Major) | 30 days |
| Re-Review (if Major Revisions) | 21–28 days |
| Copyediting & Production | 7–14 working days |
| Total (Submission → First Decision) | 5–7 weeks |
Reviewer Selection & Confidentiality
Selection Criteria
Reviewers are selected based on subject-matter expertise, methodological competence, and publication record. GMR may use author-suggested reviewers but independently verifies their suitability and independence. The final selection rests with the editor.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts and review materials are treated as strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use information from submitted manuscripts for personal or professional advantage. Reviewer identities remain confidential.
Competing Interests
Reviewers must decline assignments if they have any conflict of interest — including recent collaboration (within 5 years), same institutional affiliation, financial interests, or personal relationships. See GMR's Competing Interests Policy.
Editor Recusal
Editors who have a competing interest must recuse themselves. The manuscript will be reassigned to another editor or editorial board member to ensure impartial handling.
Evaluation Criteria Summary
Reviewers assess each manuscript using a structured evaluation form with weighted scoring criteria. Note that methodological criteria vary by article type:
| Criterion | Weight | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| A1. Originality & Novelty | 20% | Research gap, distinct contribution, non-trivial research question |
| A2. Theoretical Foundation | 15% | Framework quality, literature recency (>50% from last 5 years), quality of sources |
| A3. Methodological Rigor CRITICAL | 25% | Appropriateness of design. Quant: validity/reliability (e.g., α ≥ 0.70). Qual: trustworthiness/saturation. Concept: logical coherence. |
| A4. Data Analysis & Results | 20% | Accuracy of reporting. Quant: effect sizes, model fit. Qual: depth of coding/thematic analysis. |
| A5. Practical Implications | 15% | Specific, actionable recommendations specifying what, how, and why for practice |
| A6. Writing Quality | 5% | Structured Abstract (6 sub-headings), APA 7th Edition, clarity and professionalism |
Additionally, reviewers perform 4 compliance checks (double-blind integrity, AI usage declaration, references adequacy, ethics & research integrity) and provide 4 overall assessment scores (scientific quality, theoretical contribution, practical impact, and suitability for GMR readership).
Appeals & Complaints
Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of receiving the decision. The appeal must include:
- A detailed, point-by-point rebuttal of the reviewer comments and editorial decision.
- New evidence or arguments not previously considered.
- The appeal should be sent to editor@goliterati.com.
Appeal Process: The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal independently and may consult additional reviewers or editorial board members. The decision on the appeal is final. Appeals based solely on disagreement with the reviewers' academic judgment, without substantive new arguments, will not be considered.
Ethical Oversight in Peer Review
GMR is committed to ethical standards at every stage of the review process:
Plagiarism Detection
All manuscripts are screened using Turnitin/iThenticate. Maximum similarity index: ≤ 20%. Confirmed plagiarism results in immediate rejection.
AI Transparency
Authors must declare any use of AI or generative technologies. AI tools cannot be listed as authors. Reviewers verify AI disclosure compliance.
Research Ethics
Empirical research must document IRB/ethics approval, informed consent, data availability, and competing interests disclosure.
Misconduct Handling
Suspected misconduct is investigated following COPE flowcharts. Actions may include correction, expression of concern, or retraction.
Related Policies & Resources
Reviewer Guidelines
Detailed evaluation criteria, scoring benchmarks, and compliance checks for reviewers.
Review Evaluation Form
The full 27-item structured review form used by all GMR reviewers.
Competing Interests Policy
Obligations for authors, reviewers, and editors regarding conflict of interest disclosure.
Publication Ethics
COPE-aligned policies on authorship, misconduct, corrections, and retractions.