Peer Review Policy

​Review Framework

The peer review process at GBP Publications is governed by a double-blind model, under which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the evaluation process. This anonymity serves to minimize bias and maintain the objectivity of scholarly judgment. The double-blind model is applied as standard across all disciplines, although alternative models such as single-blind or open peer review may be considered in exceptional cases—particularly where disciplinary norms or the nature of the material (e.g., applied policy research or practitioner case studies) justify an alternative approach. Any deviation from the double-blind standard is subject to rigorous editorial oversight and justification by the relevant academic or commissioning editor.

​

Submission Eligibility

To be considered for peer review, submissions must demonstrate scholarly merit, originality, and a clear contribution to the advancement of knowledge within the relevant field. The submission may be a full manuscript or, in some cases such as prospective academic series, a comprehensive proposal accompanied by representative sample chapters. All submissions must be complete, coherent, and accompanied by a declaration confirming that the manuscript is original, has not been published elsewhere, and is not under consideration by another publisher. The editorial team, following a preliminary internal assessment, reserves the right to decline manuscripts that do not meet baseline quality criteria or that fall outside the thematic and disciplinary scope of GBP Publications.

​​

Reviewer Selection

The selection of reviewers is carried out with utmost diligence to ensure subject expertise, academic impartiality, and geographical as well as institutional diversity. Reviewers are chosen based on their demonstrable track record in the relevant area of research, including peer-reviewed publications, academic appointments, and contributions to the field. Every effort is made to avoid conflicts of interest, and reviewers must disclose any real or perceived affiliations or relationships with the author(s) or their institutions that may compromise the impartiality of the review. Reviewers agree to maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process and are instructed to assess the submission solely on its scholarly merit, without regard to the author’s identity, institutional affiliation, or geographic origin.

​

Review Criteria

Peer reviewers are expected to engage with the submission in a thorough, critical, and constructive manner. The evaluation focuses on the originality and significance of the research, the soundness of its theoretical and methodological foundations, the clarity and coherence of its argumentation, and the manuscript’s engagement with relevant contemporary and historical literature. Additional criteria include the structural integrity of the work, the scholarly appropriateness of its referencing and citation practices, and its potential contribution to ongoing academic discourse. Ethical considerations, including the treatment of sensitive topics and data integrity, are also assessed. Reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed, evidence-based feedback that can guide authors in strengthening their work, whether or not the manuscript is ultimately accepted for publication.

​

Editorial Decision Process

The final decision regarding publication rests with the Series Editor or Commissioning Editor, in consultation with the Academic Editorial Board where appropriate. Decisions are based on a holistic evaluation of the reviewers’ reports, the manuscript’s academic fit, and its alignment with the publishing objectives of GBP Publications. Editorial decisions fall into one of four categories: acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. In cases where reviewers offer divergent assessments, the editorial office may seek an additional review or conduct an internal comparative evaluation. Authors are provided with anonymized reviewer feedback and a reasoned editorial decision, along with guidance on how to proceed if revisions are requested.

​

Revision and Resubmission

Authors whose work requires revision are expected to respond comprehensively and respectfully to all reviewer comments. A revised manuscript must be submitted with a detailed response document that outlines the changes made in light of each comment, or a rationale where a particular suggestion has not been adopted. All changes to the manuscript must be clearly marked or otherwise indicated to facilitate the re-evaluation process. Revised manuscripts may be returned to one or more of the original reviewers, particularly in cases involving substantial revision, or they may be assessed internally by the editorial team if the changes are relatively minor. Timeframes for revision are determined based on the extent of revisions required but generally range from four to twelve weeks.

​

Appeals and Disputes

GBP Publications recognizes the importance of academic dialogue and the right of authors to appeal editorial decisions where they believe a significant oversight, misunderstanding, or procedural error has occurred. Appeals must be submitted in writing within four weeks of the decision and must include a detailed justification grounded in scholarly reasoning. Appeals are reviewed by a senior editorial advisor or a member of the Academic Advisory Board who was not involved in the original review process. The outcome of the appeal is final and will be communicated with full transparency. We also follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines in addressing any complaints related to peer review misconduct or editorial malpractice.

​

Research Integrity and Ethics

GBP Publications maintains a firm commitment to research integrity and adheres to the highest ethical standards in academic publishing. All manuscripts are subject to plagiarism checks using recognized detection software. We uphold a zero-tolerance policy toward plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, undeclared conflicts of interest, ghost authorship, and redundant publication. Where applicable, authors must provide evidence of ethical clearance from relevant institutional review boards, especially for work involving human subjects, sensitive data, or vulnerable populations. Any breach of research ethics, whether discovered during the review process or post-publication, is handled in accordance with COPE protocols and may result in retraction or other corrective actions.

​

Policy Transparency

​​

In line with our commitment to editorial transparency and accountability, GBP Publications maintains a formal record of the peer review history for all accepted works. While reviewer identities are kept confidential, the existence and structure of the peer review process are publicly acknowledged in each publication. Reviewers may receive formal recognition for their service upon request, and we regularly evaluate our reviewer database to ensure balance, expertise, and inclusion. We are committed to fostering an inclusive peer review culture that values diversity of thought, background, and methodology, and we continuously monitor our practices to uphold the principles of fairness, transparency, and academic excellence.