Peer Review Policy

At the Gateway Journal for Modern Studies and Research (GJMSR), the peer review process is designed to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity, fairness, and transparency in accordance with the ethical principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Elsevier’s Publishing Ethics, and the MyCite Selection Criteria.
The journal follows a double-blind peer review system, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation process to maintain objectivity and impartiality.

1. Manuscript Submission and Initial Evaluation

All manuscripts submitted to GJMSR are first screened by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Manager to verify compliance with the journal’s scope, author guidelines, and ethical standards.
Submissions that fail to meet the formatting or policy requirements are returned to the corresponding author for correction within one week.

Each manuscript undergoes plagiarism detection via Turnitin, and only submissions with a similarity index below 20% are considered for review. Manuscripts exceeding this threshold are returned to the authors for revision and resubmission.

2. Peer Review Assignment

Once a manuscript passes the initial evaluation, it is assigned to a Section Editor who assesses its scientific relevance and quality.
The Section Editor recommends at least two qualified reviewers with expertise in the manuscript’s subject area to the Editor-in-Chief.
The Editor-in-Chief then formally invites the reviewers and provides them with a standardized review form to guide their evaluation. Reviewers must confirm acceptance of the invitation before accessing the manuscript.

3. Review Procedure and Evaluation

The GJMSR review process is strictly double-blind, ensuring anonymity between authors and reviewers.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

Originality, novelty, and contribution to knowledge
Soundness of methodology and analytical approach
Relevance and significance of findings to the field
Clarity, coherence, and quality of writing
Ethical compliance and scientific validity

Reviewers are expected to submit their evaluation reports within 2–3 weeks, recommending one of the following outcomes:

Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject

If the reviewers’ recommendations differ substantially, the Editor-in-Chief may appoint a third reviewer to provide an independent assessment. The first review cycle is typically completed within 6 weeks, with a maximum duration of three months.

4. Revision and Resubmission

Authors who receive reviewer comments must revise their manuscripts accordingly and resubmit both:

A revised version of the manuscript, and
A point-by-point response letter detailing how each comment was addressed.

The revised submission must be uploaded within two weeks unless an extension is requested in advance.
Failure to meet this deadline may result in withdrawal of the manuscript.
Revised submissions are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, if necessary, by the original reviewers to ensure that all concerns have been resolved satisfactorily.

5. Final Editorial Decision

After considering all review reports and revisions, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision, which may be one of the following:

Accept for Publication
Accept with Minor Revisions
Major Revision Required
Reject

If both reviewers recommend rejection, the decision is final.
The Editor-in-Chief’s decision is based on academic merit, originality, and adherence to the journal’s ethical and editorial standards.

6. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal a rejection decision by submitting a formal written request to the Editor-in-Chief, including detailed justification and a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments.
The appeal is reviewed by the Editorial Board, and if necessary, by an additional independent reviewer.
All appeals are handled impartially in line with COPE’s guidelines.
A rejection decision is generally considered final unless clear evidence supports reconsideration.

7. Confidentiality and Ethical Compliance

All manuscripts, reviews, and editorial communications are treated as strictly confidential.
Editors and reviewers must not disclose, share, or use any unpublished material for personal research or any other purpose.
All participants in the peer review process must declare any conflicts of interest and maintain ethical integrity throughout the evaluation.

8. Archiving and Transparency

To ensure transparency, accountability, and long-term accessibility, GJMSR securely stores all peer review records within its editorial management system.
The journal complies with Sherpa Romeo and LOCKSS/CLOCKSS digital preservation standards to guarantee the permanent archiving of manuscripts and peer review reports.

Summary

The peer review process at GJMSR upholds the highest standards of academic publishing, ensuring that all accepted manuscripts demonstrate originality, scholarly rigor, and interdisciplinary relevance.
The journal’s review procedures are fully aligned with COPE, Elsevier, and MyCite frameworks, guaranteeing ethical integrity, international credibility, and compliance with Scopus and Clarivate indexing requirements.