Reviewer Guidelines

 

Global Review of Humanities, Arts and Society (GRHAS) relies on the expertise and commitment of peer reviewers to maintain the academic quality, integrity, and scholarly standards of the journal. Reviewers play a crucial role in evaluating submitted manuscripts and providing constructive feedback that supports both editorial decision-making and the improvement of scholarly work.

The following guidelines outline the expectations and responsibilities for reviewers participating in the journal’s peer review process.

Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are responsible for providing objective, fair, and timely evaluations of manuscripts submitted to the journal. The purpose of peer review is to assess the scholarly merit of the work and to provide constructive feedback that may help improve the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to:

  • evaluate the originality and academic contribution of the research
  • assess the theoretical framework and methodological approach
  • examine the clarity, coherence, and organization of the manuscript
  • determine whether the manuscript engages adequately with relevant literature
  • consider the significance and relevance of the research to the journal’s scope

Reviewers should provide clear, constructive comments that assist authors in strengthening their work.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, or discuss the manuscript with others without permission from the editorial office.

Unpublished information contained in a manuscript must not be used for personal research, professional advantage, or any other purpose prior to publication.

Reviewers must not upload manuscript files or review materials to external platforms or AI systems that may compromise the confidentiality of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their ability to provide an impartial evaluation. Conflicts of interest may arise from personal, professional, or institutional relationships with the authors.

If a reviewer believes that a conflict of interest exists, they should decline the review invitation and inform the editorial office.

Objectivity and Constructive Feedback

Reviews should be conducted in a professional, objective, and respectful manner. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.

Reviewers should focus their evaluation on the academic quality of the manuscript and provide detailed comments that explain their recommendations. Where possible, reviewers should offer suggestions that may help improve the clarity, structure, or scholarly contribution of the work.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are generally asked to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  • originality and scholarly contribution
  • clarity of research questions or objectives
  • theoretical and conceptual framework
  • methodological rigor and research design
  • engagement with relevant literature
  • clarity and coherence of argumentation
  • relevance to the interdisciplinary scope of the journal

The reviewer’s comments should clearly indicate strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement.

Review Recommendations

At the conclusion of the review, reviewers are typically asked to recommend one of the following editorial decisions:

  • Accept without revisions
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Major revisions required
  • Reject

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor based on the reviewers’ reports and overall editorial evaluation.

Timeliness of Reviews

Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the timeframe specified by the editorial office. If reviewers are unable to complete the review within the requested period, they should inform the editorial office as soon as possible so that alternative arrangements can be made.

Prompt and timely reviews are essential for maintaining an efficient and transparent editorial process.

Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers should notify the editors if they identify:

  • potential plagiarism or duplicate publication
  • significant similarity to previously published work
  • ethical concerns related to research methods or data integrity
  • inappropriate citation practices or reference manipulation

The journal takes such concerns seriously and will investigate any issues raised during the review process.

Contribution to Scholarly Quality

By participating in the peer review process, reviewers contribute to the development of high-quality scholarly research and help maintain the academic standards of the journal.

GRHAS greatly appreciates the time, expertise, and professional commitment that reviewers dedicate to supporting the advancement of research in the humanities, arts, and social sciences.