Peer Review Policy

All manuscripts submitted to GRPJ undergo a rigorous double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. Peer review serves as an essential mechanism for maintaining academic quality, improving manuscripts through constructive feedback, and ensuring that editorial decisions are objective, transparent, and evidence-based.

Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Associate Editor. This preliminary screening determines whether the manuscript is suitable for external peer review, evaluating:

• alignment with the journal's aims and scope;
• originality and scholarly contribution;
• compliance with the journal's formatting and submission requirements;
• language quality and readability;
• completeness of required declarations and supporting documents;
• ethical compliance, including research ethics approval where applicable; and
• acceptable similarity index based on plagiarism screening.

Manuscripts that fail to meet these minimum requirements may be returned to the authors for technical revision or rejected without external review (desk rejection).

Before peer review, all submissions are screened using plagiarism detection software. The Editorial Board evaluates similarity reports carefully, recognizing that numerical similarity scores alone do not necessarily indicate plagiarism — particular attention is given to the originality of ideas, appropriate citation practices, and potential overlap with previously published work. Where significant concerns are identified, authors may be asked to provide clarification, revise the manuscript, or the submission may be rejected in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policy.

Manuscripts passing the editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers with demonstrated expertise relevant to the subject matter. Reviewers are selected based on:

• academic qualifications;
• publication record;
• subject expertise;
• prior reviewing experience;
• absence of conflicts of interest; and
• ability to provide an objective and timely evaluation.

The Editorial Board may invite additional reviewers whenever specialized expertise is required or when reviewer recommendations substantially differ. Author-suggested reviewers may be considered; however, the final selection of reviewers rests solely with the Editorial Board.

GRPJ adopts a double-blind peer-review model. Under this system:

• reviewers do not know the identities of the authors;
• authors do not know the identities of the reviewers; and
• all identifying information is removed from manuscripts before review.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that submitted manuscripts are appropriately anonymized. Reviewer identities remain confidential unless disclosure is mutually agreed upon after publication.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts using, where appropriate, the following criteria: originality and novelty; relevance to the journal's aims and scope; significance of the research question; theoretical contribution; methodological rigor; appropriateness of statistical analyses or qualitative methods; ethical compliance; quality of data presentation; interpretation and discussion of findings; quality and relevance of references; clarity of writing and organization; and overall contribution to scholarship and policy. Reviewers may also provide recommendations regarding language editing, additional literature, methodological improvements, or further analyses.

Following evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following editorial decisions:

• Accept without revision
• Accept with minor revisions
• Major revisions required
• Reject but encourage resubmission as a substantially revised new manuscript
• Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory — the final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief, who considers reviewer recommendations, editorial assessment, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and the manuscript's contribution to the field. When reviewer opinions differ substantially, the Editor-in-Chief may consult an Associate Editor, invite an additional independent reviewer, or request further revisions before making a final decision. Editorial decisions are communicated to the corresponding author together with anonymized reviewer comments.

Authors receiving requests for revision should submit a revised manuscript with tracked or highlighted changes and a detailed response letter addressing each reviewer comment individually. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when major revisions have been requested. Failure to submit revisions within the specified timeframe may result in administrative withdrawal of the manuscript unless an extension has been approved.

Authors who believe an editorial decision resulted from a factual error or procedural irregularity may submit a written appeal within 30 days of receiving the decision, with clear justification and supporting evidence. The appeal is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor not involved in the manuscript's original evaluation, and additional external reviewers may be consulted when appropriate. The outcome of the appeal is final.

All manuscripts submitted to GRPJ are confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff shall not disclose manuscript contents, share unpublished data, use unpublished information for personal research, distribute manuscripts to unauthorized individuals, or discuss submissions outside the editorial process. Confidentiality is maintained throughout the review process and after editorial decisions have been made.

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest before accepting responsibility for a manuscript — arising from financial relationships, institutional affiliations, collaborative research, supervisory relationships, personal relationships, professional competition, or ideological commitments. Individuals with significant conflicts shall recuse themselves from the review process.

If reviewers suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, unethical research practices, image manipulation, authorship disputes, undeclared conflicts of interest, or any other form of research misconduct, they should immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief and provide supporting evidence. The Editorial Board will then investigate these concerns in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Research Integrity Policy and the relevant COPE guidance.

GRPJ acknowledges the essential contribution of peer reviewers to maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing. The journal will issue certificates of reviewing upon request, acknowledge reviewers annually with their consent, and encourage reviewers to record completed reviews through recognized reviewer recognition platforms where appropriate. Reviewer identities remain confidential unless disclosure is expressly authorized by both the reviewer and the journal.