Peer Review Policy

Peer review is a fundamental component of scholarly publishing and ensures that research appearing in the Journal of Global Engineering Review (JGER) meets international standards of accuracy, originality, and scientific value. The journal applies a structured, multi-stage review process to maintain the integrity and reliability of published work.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submissions undergo an initial screening conducted by members of the editorial office. This stage is intended to verify that the manuscript:

• Fits within the journal’s aims, scope, and disciplinary areas
• Meets formatting and submission requirements
• Demonstrates acceptable academic English
• Passes similarity and AI-content screening

Manuscripts that fail to satisfy these criteria may be rejected without external review or returned to the authors for technical corrections before further evaluation.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that proceed beyond screening are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript’s subject area. The journal applies a strict double-blind review system in which:

• Reviewers do not have access to author identities
• Authors do not know the identity of reviewers
• Blinded files are used to protect anonymity throughout review

Assigned reviewers provide a written assessment and recommendations based on established evaluation standards. When reviewer reports diverge substantially, a third reviewer or a senior editor may be consulted.

3. Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers’ feedback and editorial judgment, one of the following decisions will be issued:

• Acceptance
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Reject and resubmit
• Rejection

Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated to ensure that all reviewer concerns have been addressed. Failure to respond adequately to reviewer comments may result in rejection.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play an essential role in safeguarding academic quality. They are expected to:

• Provide clear, evidence-based, and constructive feedback
• Complete reviews within the stipulated timeframe
• Maintain confidentiality by not sharing or discussing manuscript content
• Disclose any conflicts of interest that could compromise impartiality
• Refrain from using unpublished material for personal research or advantage

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers and editors assess manuscripts based on the following standards:

• Relevance: Alignment with the journal’s subject focus
• Originality: Novelty of contribution and advancement of existing knowledge
• Methodological quality: Appropriateness and rigor of research methods
• Technical accuracy: Validity of data, results, and analysis
• Literature foundation: Proper engagement with existing scholarship
• Clarity and organization: Logical structure, language quality, and formatting
• Ethical compliance: Research integrity and adherence to publication ethics

Confidentiality and Objectivity

All peer reviews are confidential, and reviewer identities are never disclosed. Editorial and review decisions are based solely on scholarly quality, without regard to author background, institutional affiliation, or nationality.