Reviewer Guidelines

Introduction

The Journal of Global Economics, Public Policy and Development (JGEPD) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous and impartial peer-review process. Peer review serves as a fundamental mechanism for evaluating the quality, originality, validity, and significance of submitted manuscripts, while also assisting authors in improving their work prior to publication.

The Journal operates a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process. This approach is intended to promote fairness, objectivity, and academic integrity by ensuring that manuscripts are assessed solely on their scholarly merit.

Reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations professionally, objectively, and ethically, while providing constructive feedback that contributes to the advancement of research and scholarship.

Accepting a Review Invitation

Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers should carefully consider whether the manuscript falls within their area of expertise and whether they possess the necessary knowledge to provide a thorough and informed evaluation. Reviewers should also ensure that they can complete the review within the timeframe requested by the Journal, which is normally two weeks from the date of acceptance. If additional time is required, the handling editor should be informed as soon as possible.

Reviewers must also assess whether any circumstances exist that could compromise their impartiality. Any financial, professional, academic, institutional, or personal relationship with the authors, affiliated organizations, or subject matter that may constitute a conflict of interest should be disclosed to the Editor-in-Chief before accepting the assignment. Where such conflicts exist, reviewers should decline the invitation to review.

Evaluation of Manuscripts

The primary responsibility of reviewers is to assess the scholarly quality and suitability of manuscripts submitted to the Journal. Reviews should focus on the originality of the work, the significance of its contribution to the field, the soundness of its methodology, the accuracy of its findings, and its overall compliance with accepted academic standards.

Reviewers should consider whether the title accurately reflects the content of the manuscript and whether the abstract provides a clear and informative summary of the study. The introduction should establish an appropriate context for the research, identify relevant knowledge gaps, and clearly articulate the objectives of the study.

Particular attention should be given to the quality and relevance of the literature review, the transparency and appropriateness of the methodology, and the accuracy and reliability of the data presented. Reviewers should assess whether the methods are described in sufficient detail to permit evaluation and, where applicable, replication of the research.

The results should be presented clearly and logically, and the discussion should provide an appropriate interpretation of the findings. Conclusions should be supported by the evidence presented and should accurately reflect the outcomes of the study. Where statistical analyses, tables, figures, graphs, or other visual materials are included, reviewers should evaluate their clarity, accuracy, and contribution to the manuscript.

For studies employing specialized methodologies, analytical techniques, software, or instruments, reviewers should determine whether adequate information has been provided within the manuscript or through supplementary materials.

Preparing the Review Report

Review reports should be constructive, objective, and sufficiently detailed to assist both the authors and the editorial team. The purpose of peer review is not only to evaluate a manuscript's suitability for publication but also to provide guidance that may improve the quality, clarity, and impact of the work.

Reviewers are encouraged to comment on the organization and readability of the manuscript, the adequacy of the evidence supporting the authors' conclusions, the relevance of the literature cited, and the appropriateness of the research design and analytical methods. Recommendations for revision should be clear, specific, and supported by reasoned explanations. Criticism should always be expressed respectfully and professionally.

Reviewer Responsibilities and Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, discuss, copy, or use any part of the manuscript for personal, professional, or commercial advantage. External assistance should not be sought without the prior approval of the handling editor.

Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the agreed timeframe and to communicate promptly with the editorial office if circumstances prevent timely completion of the review. Respecting review deadlines contributes significantly to efficient editorial decision-making and timely publication.

If reviewers identify possible instances of plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, image manipulation, unethical research practices, citation manipulation, or any other form of research misconduct, they should immediately notify the editorial office and provide any relevant supporting information. Similarly, if a conflict of interest becomes apparent after the review has commenced, the reviewer should inform the editor without delay.

Editorial Decisions

Reviewer recommendations constitute an essential component of the editorial evaluation process and provide valuable guidance to the Journal's editors. However, reviewer recommendations are advisory in nature and do not determine the final outcome of a manuscript.

The final decision regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of a submission rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor, who will consider the reviewers' reports together with the Journal's editorial standards, ethical requirements, and publication priorities.

Recognition of Reviewers

The Journal of Global Economics, Public Policy and Development (JGEPD) greatly values the time, expertise, and dedication contributed by reviewers. By providing thoughtful, fair, and timely evaluations, reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the quality, credibility, and scholarly integrity of the research published by the Journal and in supporting the advancement of knowledge within the academic community.