Reviewer Guidelines

Peer review is the foundation of scholarly publishing. JGPI relies on the expertise and conscientiousness of its reviewers to ensure the quality, credibility, and integrity of every published article. Reviewers are valued members of the academic community — their contributions are formally acknowledged and their time is respected.

Reviewers are expected to provide evaluations that are thorough, objective, constructive, and specific. A high-quality review helps authors understand how their work can be strengthened, regardless of the ultimate editorial outcome. Reviews should engage substantively with the manuscript's theoretical framing, methodological approach, evidence quality, and contribution to the field.

Core reviewer responsibilities include: evaluating the manuscript's scientific validity, methodological rigour, originality, and contribution to the discipline; assessing whether conclusions are fully supported by the presented evidence and analysis; identifying logical inconsistencies, methodological gaps, or unsupported claims; checking that figures, tables, and data are clearly presented, accurate, and appropriately labelled; assessing reference completeness and identifying significant missing literature; flagging ethical concerns including undisclosed conflicts, data integrity issues, missing ethics statements, or suspected plagiarism; and completing the review within the agreed timeframe, typically 14–21 days from accepting the invitation.

The recommended review report structure is as follows. A summary of three to five sentences should describe the manuscript's research question, design, and principal findings, and assess whether the research question is significant and the approach appropriate. Major Concerns should identify issues that must be resolved before the manuscript can be considered for publication, with specific citation of page or paragraph numbers where possible. Minor Concerns should list suggestions for improvement that do not affect the core validity of the work. A confidential Decision Recommendation for the handling editor should indicate one of the following: Accept; Minor Revision; Major Revision; or Reject — with a clear rationale.

Peer Review Process

JGPI operates a Double-Blind Peer Review process in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review cycle. This model minimizes bias, protects reviewer independence, and ensures that manuscripts are evaluated solely on scientific merit.

The review process proceeds as follows. Upon submission, the author receives an automated acknowledgement with a Manuscript ID. Within five to seven business days, the Editorial Office conducts a screening for scope fit, formatting compliance, plagiarism, ethics completeness, and minimum scientific quality. Manuscripts passing screening are assigned to two or three qualified reviewers by the handling Associate Editor within three to five days. Reviewers are given 14–21 days from acceptance to complete their structured assessment. The handling editor then synthesizes the review reports and the Editor-in-Chief issues a decision — typically within five to seven days of receiving all reviews — accompanied by full reviewer reports.

Authors receiving revision decisions are asked to submit a revised manuscript with a point-by-point response letter within 21–60 days depending on the extent of revisions required. Major revisions are re-assessed by the original reviewers; minor revisions are assessed by the handling editor. A final Accept or Reject decision is typically issued within five days of re-review. Accepted manuscripts proceed immediately to production — copyediting, typesetting, DOI registration, author proofing, and online publication — within 7–15 days post-acceptance.

JGPI targets a Submission-to-First-Decision turnaround of 21–35 days and an Acceptance-to-Publication time of 7–15 days. These targets may vary based on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.

Reviewer Ethics

JGPI adopts the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. All reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations with objectivity — reviews must be based solely on scientific merit, free from personal bias, ideological preference, or competitive self-interest. Personal criticism of authors is never acceptable; all criticism must be directed at the work itself and expressed constructively.

Confidentiality is paramount: the manuscript and its contents are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or disseminate any part of the manuscript to any third party without explicit editorial permission. Reviewers must not use unpublished ideas, data, methods, or conclusions from manuscripts they review for their own research prior to publication. If a reviewer cannot complete a review within the agreed timeframe, they must notify the editorial office immediately after accepting rather than allowing the deadline to lapse without communication.

Transparency requires that any conflict of interest discovered after accepting an invitation be immediately disclosed to the Editorial Office, with voluntary recusal if necessary. Honesty requires that reviewers who suspect misconduct — including plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate submission — must immediately and confidentially report it to the Editorial Office rather than simply recommending rejection.

Conflict of Interest Policy for Reviewers

A conflict of interest (COI) exists when a reviewer's ability to provide an impartial evaluation may be compromised by a personal, professional, academic, institutional, or financial relationship with the authors or subject matter of the manuscript. A conflict of interest does not imply wrongdoing; it must be managed proactively through timely disclosure and, where necessary, recusal.

Reviewers must decline an invitation if any of the following conditions apply: they are a current or recent collaborator, co-author, supervisor, or supervisee of any listed author within the past three years; they are employed by or affiliated with the same department or institution as any listed author; they have a personal relationship with any author that could compromise objectivity; they have a direct financial interest in the results or conclusions of the manuscript; or they have publicly commented on or pre-reviewed any version of the manuscript.

In cases of doubt, reviewers should declare the potential conflict to the Editorial Office and allow the editor to make the final determination. Erring on the side of disclosure is always the correct approach. Reviewers who fail to disclose a known conflict of interest will be removed from the Reviewer Board.

Reviewer Registration

JGPI actively recruits qualified peer reviewers from all regions and disciplines within its scope. Joining the JGPI Reviewer Board is an opportunity to contribute to the quality of the scholarly record, engage with emerging research in global political inquiry, and receive formal recognition for your service to the discipline.

To be eligible, applicants must hold a minimum of a Master's degree (doctoral qualification strongly preferred), have at least three to five peer-reviewed publications in a field within the journal's scope, be an active researcher or senior practitioner in a relevant discipline, and be able to complete reviews within 14–21 days of accepting an invitation.

To register, visit the JGPI Reviewer Registration Portal on the journal's website and complete the registration form providing your name, title, institutional affiliation, country, email, ORCID, areas of substantive expertise, and methodological strengths (quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, systematic review, meta-analysis). Upload your current CV in PDF format, or provide a link to your ResearchGate, Google Scholar, or ORCID profile. The Editorial Office reviews applications within 7–10 business days and confirms acceptance via email.

Reviewer benefits include: an official digital Reviewer Certificate (JGPI-branded PDF) issued per review upon request; named recognition in the annual Reviewer Acknowledgement list published in the journal; and priority consideration for guest editorship of special issues.