Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

There are two review processes conducted: 1) preliminary/desk peer-review; 2) review

The preliminary peer-review process is done by the editor as follows:

  • Submitted papers must be written in appropriate formatting following the template. The paper that is not following the template will be automatically rejected.
  • Submitted paper will be checked by using the plagiarism checker with the 20% maximum tolerance.
  • Authors must submit the latter which emphasizes their papers are honestly presented without fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or inappropriate data manipulation

The peer-review process is as follows:

  • Geliga Journal uses Double Blind Review policy where the submitted papers are evaluated and assested by anonymous referees n which the reviewer's name is always concealed from the submitting author
  • Papers will be sent for anonymous review by at least two reviewers who will either be members of the Editorial Board or others of similar standing in the field.
  • The Editor shall inform you of the results of the review as soon as possible, hopefully in 4 to 6 weeks.

To be accepted, an article must pass the following peer-review conditions:

  • The subject is included in the journal's scope
  • The papers must follow the manuscript's guideline of Geliga Journal
  • The manuscripts are sent only via online submission. All of authors must register or login first before submit the manuscript
  • The manuscripts must have been approved by editor-in-chief of Geliga Journal
  • The manuscripts will be reviewed by reviewers after approval decision by editor-in-chief
  • Journal editor will make a decision (Accepted/Revisions required/Rejected) for the manuscripts considering the reviewers recommendation.

The main factors reviewers should provide advice on are the originality, presentation, relevance, and significance of the manuscript’s subject matter to the readership of the Geliga Journal. Questions to consider are:

  • Is the submission original?
  • Does the paper fit the scope of the journal?
  • Would the paper be of interest to the readership of the journal?
  • Does the paper help to expand or further research in this subject area?
  • Does it significantly build on (the author’s) previous work?
  • Do you feel that the significance and potential impact of a paper is high or low?
  • Is the paper complete? Is there an abstract or summary of the work undertaken as well as a concluding section?
  • Is the methodology presented in the manuscript and any analysis provided both accurate and properly conducted?
  • Are all relevant accompanying data, citations, or references given by the author?
  • Should it be shortened and reconsidered in another form?
  • Would you recommend that the author reconsider the paper for a related or alternative journal?
  • Is the submission in Standard English to aid the understanding of the reader?

Reviewers are encourage to provide detailed comments. Several things to consider for reviewers are:

  • These should be suitable for transmission to the authors: use the comment to the author as an opportunity to seek clarification on any unclear points and for further elaboration.
  • If you have time, make suggestions as to how the author can improve clarity, succinctness, and the overall quality of presentation.
  • Confirm whether you feel the subject of the paper is sufficiently interesting to justify its length; if you recommend shortening, it is useful to the author(s) if you can indicate specific areas where you think that shortening is required.
  • It is not the job of the reviewer to edit the paper for English, but it is helpful if you correct the English where the technical meaning is unclear.
  • A reviewer may disagree with the author’s opinions but should allow them to stand, provided they are consistent with the available evidence.
  • Remember that authors will welcome positive feedback as well as constructive criticism from you.