Peer Review Process

Global Review of Humanities, Arts, and Society (GRHAS) is committed to a fair, rigorous, and transparent peer review process. All submissions are evaluated through double-blind peer review, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process.

1. Overview of the Review Policy

• Double-blind model: Identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential to ensure objectivity.

• Academic merit: Manuscripts are evaluated solely on the basis of scholarly quality, originality, relevance, and clarity—regardless of author affiliation, nationality, or background.

• Confidentiality: All manuscript contents and reviewer communications are treated as strictly confidential.

• Integrity: GRHAS adheres to the ethical standards outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

2. Review Workflow

Step 1: Editorial Screening

Submissions are first assessed by the editor-in-chief or section editor to determine:

• Fit with the journal’s scope and section;

• Compliance with formatting and submission guidelines;

• Basic language clarity and structural coherence.

Manuscripts failing this check may be returned for revision or desk-rejected.

Step 2: Reviewer Assignment

• Each manuscript is assigned to at least two independent experts in the relevant field.

• In case of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer may be consulted or an editorial adjudication applied.

• Reviewers are selected based on expertise, impartiality, and availability.

Step 3: Peer Review Phase

• Reviewers typically have 4–6 weeks to submit their evaluations.

• They are asked to assess:

  • Originality and contribution to the field;

  • Methodological soundness and evidence quality;

  • Logical structure, writing clarity, and referencing;

  • Ethical compliance, data integrity, and visual material quality.

Reviewers provide both a recommendation and constructive comments for the author.

Step 4: Editorial Decision

Based on reviewers' reports, the editorial team will make one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication.

• Minor Revisions: Small adjustments needed; typically reviewed in-house.

• Major Revisions: Substantive revisions required; usually followed by re-review.

• Reject: Manuscript does not meet the journal’s academic standards.

Authors are notified with a summary of the decision and anonymized reviewer feedback.

Step 5: Revision & Final Review

• Authors are expected to submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response within 2–3 weeks (minor) or 3–5 weeks (major).

• Revised manuscripts may be sent back to original reviewers for re-evaluation.

• Upon satisfactory revision, the manuscript proceeds to acceptance and production.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide fair, thorough, and timely assessments;

• Focus on content quality, not author identity or institution;

• Avoid conflicts of interest and declare any ethical concerns;

• Keep all materials confidential and refrain from using them for personal gain;

• Follow COPE's guidelines for ethical peer review.

Reviewers are acknowledged (anonymously) annually for their contributions.

4. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal justification to the Editor-in-Chief. All appeals are reviewed independently and fairly. Complaints about the review process or editorial conduct may also be directed to the editorial office.

5. Contact

For inquiries related to the review process, timelines, or reviewer roles:

Email: editor.in.chief@grhas.centraluniteduniversity.de
Website: grhas.centraluniteduniversity.de