Reviewer Guidelins
For Reviewers
Peer review is the cornerstone of quality scientific publishing. GAJBPS is deeply grateful to the global community of expert reviewers who volunteer their time and expertise to evaluate manuscripts. This section provides guidelines for all reviewers.
1. Our Peer Review Model
GAJBPS employs double-blind peer review, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process. This model is intended to promote impartial and objective evaluation of manuscripts.
- All eligible submissions are reviewed by a minimum of two independent expert reviewers.
- The Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor makes the final editorial decision based on reviewer reports and editorial judgement.
- Reviewers are selected on the basis of their expertise, publication record, and freedom from conflicts of interest.
2. Reviewer Responsibilities
2.1 General Conduct
- Reviews must be conducted objectively, honestly, and in confidence.
- Reviewers must decline an invitation if they do not have sufficient expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript.
- Reviewers must declare any actual or potential conflict of interest (including professional, personal, financial, or institutional relationships with any author) to the editorial office before accepting the review.
- Manuscripts under review are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or disclose manuscripts or their content with any third party.
- Reviewers must not use unpublished information from a manuscript under review for their own research without explicit written permission from the authors.
2.2 Completing the Review
- Reviewers should aim to complete and submit their reports within the agreed deadline (normally 3–4 weeks from acceptance of the invitation).
- If unable to complete a review within the deadline, reviewers should notify the editorial office at the earliest opportunity.
- Reviewers may suggest colleagues as alternatives if they are unable to accept an invitation.
3. What to Evaluate
| Evaluation Criterion | Guidance |
|---|---|
| Originality & Novelty | Does the manuscript report genuinely new findings or perspectives? Is the work incremental or transformative? |
| Scientific Rigour | Are the study design, methodology, and statistical analyses sound, appropriate, and clearly described? |
| Reproducibility | Is sufficient methodological detail provided for independent replication? |
| Data Integrity | Do the reported data appear complete, consistent, and credibly presented? |
| Interpretation | Are conclusions supported by the data? Are alternative interpretations considered? |
| Literature Coverage | Does the manuscript adequately engage with relevant prior work? Are key references missing? |
| Clarity & Presentation | Is the manuscript clearly written, logically structured, and appropriate in length? |
| Ethical Compliance | Is there evidence of appropriate ethical approval and adherence to reporting guidelines? |
| Significance | Does the work advance the field meaningfully and merit publication in GAJBPS? |
4. Reviewer Report Structure
Reviewers are asked to provide a structured report comprising the following elements:
- Summary (3–5 sentences): A brief, neutral description of what the manuscript reports.
- Major Concerns: Numbered list of substantive issues (methodology, data, interpretation, missing controls, statistical problems, etc.) that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
- Minor Concerns: Numbered list of smaller issues (clarity, referencing, figure quality, language) that should be corrected.
- Confidential Comments to the Editor (optional): Issues not appropriate to communicate directly to the authors, including concerns about research integrity, plagiarism, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or duplicate submission.
- Recommendation: Accept; Minor Revision; Major Revision; Reject.
5. Reporting Standards
Reviewers are encouraged to refer to the following standard checklists when evaluating manuscripts:
- CONSORT — randomised controlled trials
- PRISMA — systematic reviews and meta-analyses
- STROBE — observational studies
- ARRIVE — animal research
- MIQE — quantitative PCR studies
Where a manuscript does not comply with the relevant checklist, reviewers are encouraged to note specific items as part of their report.
6. Register as a Reviewer
GAJBPS warmly invites qualified researchers to join its reviewer panel.
To register, please send the following to: reviewers@gajbps.edu.pk
- Full name and current institutional affiliation
- Brief CV or link to institutional/ORCID profile
- Up to 10 keywords describing your areas of expertise
- Any areas you are not able to review
- Confirmation of no current affiliation with Grand Asian University
Registered reviewers are listed (with consent) in the journal's acknowledgement of reviewers, published annually. Reviewer activity may also be logged via Publons / Web of Science.
