1. Reviewers’ Responsibility

The reviewers are expected to follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines during the peer review process:


Given the profound responsibility placed upon reviewers to safeguard the integrity of the scholarly record, it is imperative that reviewers adhere to the following criteria:

  • Hold no conflicts of interest with any of the authors;
  • Originate from institutions distinct from those of the authors;
  • Demonstrate a lack of recent collaborative publications with any of the authors;
  • Possess an official and recognized academic affiliation.

2. Reviewers’ Benefit

Despite the unheralded nature of their reviewing endeavors, GSP is dedicated to acknowledging and rewarding the valuable contributions of our reviewers:

  • A discount will be granted to reviewers who provide timely and qualified review reports. This discount can be coupled with other types of discounts provided by the editorial office.
  • Reviewers are presented with a personalized reviewer certificate and are eligible to be considered for the “Outstanding Reviewer Awards”, which are conferred with a certificate by the end of the year.
  • Reviewers receive due recognition in the journal’s annual acknowledgment of reviewers.

3. General Guidelines for Reviewers

The editorial office will send formal invitation emails to prospective reviewers, containing essential details such as the article title and an abstract. Reviewers are expected to decide if they can review the paper at their earliest convenience. It is encouraged to recommend other scholars if a reviewer must decline the invitation due to some reasons.

Upon the gracious acceptance of the invitation by a reviewer, we kindly request their commitment to either complete the review report within the prescribed due date or, should the need arise, to proactively seek an extension in order to avoid any unnecessary delays. Following are some tips for review reports:

  • Commence with a brief introduction to the article’s content, assessing its fluency and logical coherence, highlighting its primary contributions to the field, and identifying its strengths.
  • In the case of a research article, reviewers are encouraged to assess the manuscript's scientific soundness and the appropriateness of the experimental design in testing the stated hypothesis. Additionally, reviewers should evaluate the manuscript’s reproducibility in relation to the details presented in the methods section. Furthermore, an evaluation of the suitability of figures, tables, images, and schemes for presenting data is expected. Reviewers may also state the English language problems.
  • For Review articles, reviewers are requested to assess the clarity, comprehensiveness, and relevance of the review to the field. Additionally, they should evaluate whether the statements and conclusions drawn within the review are coherent and substantiated by the cited references. Lastly, reviewers are to assess the appropriateness of figures, tables, images, and schemes in effectively conveying data, ensuring their ease of interpretation and understanding.

Please note that reviewers are obligated to exercise utmost caution to preserve their anonymity, refraining from disclosing their identity to the authors, whether within their comments or in the metadata of reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format. In cases where a reviewer seeks a colleague to perform the review on their behalf, it is imperative to promptly inform the Editorial Office of such delegation.

Please provide an overall recommendation for the ensuing processing stage of the manuscript, as follows:

  • Accept in Present Form: The paper is deemed suitable for acceptance without necessitating any further alterations.
  • Accept after Revisions: In principle, the paper can be accepted after revisions are made based on the reviewer’s feedback.
  • Revise and Re-review: The manuscript’s acceptance hinges on the implementation of revisions. The author needs to provide a point-by-point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. A maximum of two rounds of major revisions per manuscript are permitted.
  • Reject: The article exhibits significant deficiencies and fails to make an original contribution to the field. Consequently, the paper may be declined, with no opportunity for resubmission to the journal.

Note that your recommendation remains confidential and is solely accessible to the journal’s editorial team, with no visibility to the authors. Decisions on revisions, acceptance, or rejections must always be well justified.

4. To be a Reviewer

If you have a keen interest in serving as a reviewer for a GSP journal or wish to nominate a colleague for this role, we kindly invite you to navigate to the respective journal pages (https://ojs.sgsci.org/) to contact us.