Peer Review Process
Global Review of Humanities, Arts and Society (GRHAS) implements a rigorous and transparent double-blind peer review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, and integrity of all published research. In this review model, the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept anonymous throughout the evaluation process in order to maintain impartiality and minimize potential bias.
The editorial office manages the review process in accordance with established scholarly publishing standards and ethical guidelines. Editorial decisions are based solely on the academic merit of the manuscript, including its originality, theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, clarity of argumentation, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.
Review Model
GRHAS uses a double-blind peer review system. Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are typically evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.
Reviewers are selected based on their scholarly background and research experience to ensure an informed and fair evaluation of the manuscript. When necessary, the editor may invite an additional reviewer to provide further assessment.
The editorial team oversees the entire process and ensures that all reviews are conducted in accordance with recognized standards of academic integrity and ethical peer review.
Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial screening conducted by the editorial office and the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned handling editor. During this stage, the manuscript is assessed for:
- relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
- originality and scholarly significance
- clarity and quality of academic presentation
- compliance with the journal’s submission guidelines
- adherence to publication ethics standards
Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review or returned to the authors for technical corrections prior to peer review.
External Peer Review & Review Criteria
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to qualified reviewers for independent evaluation. Each reviewer provides a detailed report addressing the scholarly quality and suitability of the manuscript for publication. Reviewers are asked to provide constructive feedback intended to assist both the editors in making editorial decisions and the authors in improving the quality of their work.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to several academic criteria, including:
- originality and contribution to scholarship
- theoretical framework and conceptual clarity
- methodological rigor and research design
- engagement with relevant and current literature
- clarity, coherence, and structure of argumentation
- relevance to the interdisciplinary scope of the journal
Reviewer comments and recommendations are shared with the authors to support constructive revision and improvement of the manuscript.
Editorial Workflow and Review Timeline
| Stage | Process Description | Typical Timeframe |
|---|---|---|
| Submission Confirmation | The editorial office acknowledges receipt of the manuscript and performs a technical and ethical compliance check. | 1–3 days |
| Initial Editorial Screening | The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor evaluates the manuscript for scope, originality, and suitability for peer review. | 5–7 days |
| Reviewer Invitation and Assignment | Independent reviewers with appropriate expertise are invited to review the manuscript. | 3–5 days |
| External Peer Review | The manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by at least two reviewers. | 3–4 weeks |
| Editorial Decision | The editor evaluates reviewer reports and determines the editorial decision. | 5–7 days |
| Author Revision | Authors revise the manuscript and respond to reviewer comments when revisions are required. | 2–3 weeks (minor revisions) / 3–5 weeks (major revisions) |
| Final Evaluation | The revised manuscript is evaluated by the editor and, when necessary, returned to reviewers for further assessment before the final decision is made. | 1–2 weeks |
* The duration of the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability and the extent of revisions required.
Editorial Decisions
Based on the reviewers’ reports and editorial evaluation, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:
- Accept without revisions
- Accept with minor revisions
- Major revisions required
- Reject
If reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional independent review before making a final decision.
Conflict of Interest & Confidentiality
Editors and reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence the evaluation of a manuscript. If a conflict of interest exists, the individual concerned must recuse themselves from the review process, and another qualified editor or reviewer will be assigned.
All manuscripts submitted to GRHAS are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished materials from submitted manuscripts for personal research or advantage.
The journal is committed to maintaining transparency, fairness, and integrity in the peer review process in accordance with internationally recognized standards of academic publishing.
