Peer Review Policy

  1. Overview

Gomal Journal of Life Sciences (GJLS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly integrity and academic excellence. Peer review plays a crucial role in ensuring the quality and validity of the research published in our journal. The peer review process is designed to evaluate the originality, significance, methodological rigor, and ethical standards of submitted manuscripts. This policy outlines the principles and procedures guiding the peer review process at GJLS.

  1. Peer Review Process

Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer review process conducted by experts in the relevant field(s). The process typically follows these steps:

2.1 Initial Screening:

The Editorial Board conducts an initial screening to ensure that the manuscript meets the journal's scope and submission guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without further review.

2.2 Assignment to Reviewers:

Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the subject matter. Reviewers are selected based on their qualifications, expertise, and absence of any conflicts of interest with the authors.

2.3 Peer Review:

Reviewers critically evaluate the manuscript based on its originality, significance, methodology, clarity, and adherence to ethical standards. They provide constructive feedback to the authors and make recommendations regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication.

2.4 Editorial Decision:

Based on the reviewers' feedback, the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors make a decision on the manuscript. Possible decisions include acceptance, revision, resubmission, or rejection. Authors are informed of the decision along with reviewers' comments to help them improve the manuscript.

2.5 Revision and Resubmission:

If revisions are required, authors are given the opportunity to address reviewers' comments and revise their manuscript accordingly. Revised manuscripts may undergo further review before a final decision is made.

2.6 Final Decision:

The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors make the final decision on acceptance or rejection of the manuscript based on the revised version and reviewers' feedback.

  1. Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are expected to adhere to the following guidelines:

  • Maintain confidentiality: Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents and refrain from sharing information about the manuscript with unauthorized individuals.
  • Provide constructive feedback: Reviewers should provide insightful, impartial, and constructive feedback to help authors improve their work.
  • Disclose conflicts of interest: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may bias their evaluation of the manuscript.
  • Timely response: Reviewers are expected to complete their review within the agreed-upon timeframe to expedite the publication process.
  1. Editorial Oversight

The Editorial Board oversees the peer review process to ensure its fairness, transparency, and integrity. Editors may intervene in cases of suspected misconduct or conflicts of interest and may seek additional opinions to resolve disputes.

  1. Appeal Process

Authors who disagree with the editorial decision may appeal by providing a detailed response addressing reviewers' comments and concerns. The appeal will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors, and a final decision will be made.