Guidance for Peer Reviewers

At GBP Publications, the peer review process stands as the bedrock of our scholarly credibility, intellectual integrity, and editorial excellence. We recognize the immense responsibility that rests upon the shoulders of our peer reviewers, whose scholarly judgment, impartiality, and constructive critique form the foundation for publishing works of enduring academic value. As a reviewer for GBP Publications, you are entrusted with the task not only of evaluating the academic merit of manuscripts submitted to us but also of contributing to the development and refinement of ideas that may shape future discourse within and beyond your discipline.
a

The principal role of the peer reviewer within our editorial process is to provide a rigorous, fair, and timely assessment of a manuscript’s scholarly contribution. We expect reviewers to engage with submitted work as independent subject-matter experts, applying their critical faculties to evaluate the manuscript's originality, coherence, theoretical and methodological sophistication, and overall contribution to the field. Your feedback should serve as a guide for both editors and authors: for editors, it informs the publication decision; for authors, it illuminates pathways for revision, enhancement, or reconceptualization. Peer review is not merely a gatekeeping function—it is an academic dialogue, one that should be characterized by generosity of insight, clarity of judgment, and intellectual integrity.
 

Confidentiality is an essential principle of our peer review framework. All manuscripts received for review must be treated as privileged information. Reviewers are expected to refrain from sharing, discussing, or distributing any part of the manuscript or the review process with colleagues, students, or third parties without explicit authorization from the editorial office. Furthermore, reviewers should not exploit any material contained in the manuscript for their own research or professional advantage. If assistance from a junior colleague or co-reviewer is deemed necessary, it must be sought only after receiving permission from the editor, and appropriate acknowledgment must be given. We emphasize that reviews must be conducted independently and should reflect the reviewer’s own analysis, free from external bias or interference.
 

The timeliness of reviews is critical to maintaining an efficient and responsive editorial process. Reviewers are generally expected to return their evaluations within four to six weeks of receiving the manuscript, depending on its length and complexity. We fully understand the competing demands on academic professionals and appreciate the commitment of time and effort that reviewing entails. If, for any reason, a reviewer finds themselves unable to complete the review within the agreed timeframe, we request that they notify the editor immediately so that suitable arrangements—such as reassignment or extension—can be made without compromising the workflow.
 

A key hallmark of the review process at GBP Publications is the expectation that reviewers will deliver feedback that is balanced, objective, and constructive. Manuscripts must be judged entirely on their scholarly merit, not on the basis of the author’s institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, language proficiency, or philosophical orientation. Reviewers should strive to articulate both the strengths and limitations of the manuscript in detail, substantiating their assessments with reference to specific aspects of the text or to established knowledge within the field. Criticism should always be presented respectfully and with a clear intention to help the author improve the manuscript. Reviewers are encouraged to provide a comprehensive analysis rather than a cursory summary, identifying areas that require revision, clarification, expansion, or refinement, while also recognizing where the work succeeds in advancing knowledge.
 

In evaluating manuscripts, reviewers are expected to reflect deeply on a number of interrelated dimensions. These include the manuscript’s originality and significance, its contribution to ongoing academic debates, the appropriateness and rigor of its theoretical or methodological framework, the clarity and logical coherence of its arguments, the organization and readability of the prose, and its engagement with existing literature. While each work may conform to the conventions of its own field or subdiscipline, the overarching concern remains the same: does the manuscript make a meaningful and well-supported contribution to scholarship? A detailed and analytically rich review is especially vital for monographs or edited volumes, where the depth and scope of inquiry may span multiple domains and require interdisciplinary sensibility.
 

At the conclusion of the review, the reviewer is invited to offer a confidential recommendation to the editor, indicating whether the manuscript is ready for publication, requires minor or major revisions, or should be declined. This recommendation should be accompanied by a narrative justification, contextualizing the reviewer’s view and drawing attention to any elements that particularly influenced the decision. It is important to note that final decisions rest with the editorial team, which may weigh multiple factors—including, but not limited to, peer reviews—when determining the manuscript’s fate. Editors may also write back to reviewers for clarifications or further insight before arriving at a final decision.
 

We further ask that reviewers disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest. If a reviewer identifies the manuscript’s authorship or believes they may be biased due to past collaborations, personal relationships, institutional affiliations, or direct competition, they must inform the editor immediately and recuse themselves from the review. Similarly, if any aspect of the manuscript raises ethical concerns—such as plagiarism, data fabrication, inappropriate referencing, or breach of research ethics—this must be reported discreetly to the editorial office. GBP Publications adheres to the ethical standards outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and handles such matters with utmost seriousness.
 

While the double-blind nature of our review model safeguards reviewer anonymity, we also recognize the importance of acknowledging reviewers for their intellectual labor. Reviewers may opt to make their contributions visible on platforms such as ORCID, Publons, or in GBP’s annual acknowledgments, provided they choose to waive anonymity post-publication. No reviewer will ever be identified without their explicit consent.
 

Beyond the task of evaluation, we view reviewers as partners in our publishing mission. Those who regularly contribute to the advancement of GBP Publications’ quality may be invited to serve on advisory boards, act as guest editors, write prefaces or critical essays, or lead thematic collections within their domain of expertise. We also offer mentorship and training opportunities for early-career scholars interested in developing their reviewing skills, in line with our belief that academic publishing should be as inclusive and educational as it is rigorous.