The decision-making process at Global Political Review (GPR) is structured to ensure fairness, transparency, and academic rigor. Each manuscript undergoes a systematic evaluation to determine whether it meets the journal's standards for quality, relevance, and originality. Below is a detailed overview of the process:

1. Editorial Office Check: Upon submission, the manuscript is first screened by the editorial office to ensure it adheres to the journal's formatting and submission guidelines. This includes verifying:
   1. Correct formatting (title page, abstract, keywords, etc.).
   2. Compliance with the plagiarism threshold (10% per GPR policy, and 19% per HEC guidelines).
   3. Completeness of author information and declarations (e.g., conflict of interest, copyright agreements).
2. Scope and Relevance: The Editor-in-Chief (or a designated editor) reviews the manuscript to ensure it aligns with the journal’s aims and scope, as well as its relevance to the field of social sciences. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be desk rejected.

1. Reviewer Assignment: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to two or more external peer reviewers based on their expertise in the subject area. The review process follows a double-blind model, ensuring anonymity for both the authors and reviewers.
2. Review Criteria: Reviewers assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:
   1. Originality and significance of the research.
   2. Clarity and coherence of the argument.
   3. Methodological rigor and validity of results.
   4. Quality of writing and adherence to ethical standards.
   5. Contribution to the existing body of knowledge in social sciences.
3. Reviewer Recommendations: After evaluation, reviewers submit their recommendations, which generally fall into one of the following categories:
   1. Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication with no or minimal revisions.
   2. Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes before it can be accepted.
   3. Major Revisions: Substantial changes are necessary, but the manuscript has the potential to be accepted after revision.
   4. Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication, either due to lack of originality, poor quality, or misalignment with the journal’s scope.

1. Consolidation of Reviews: The assigned handling editor consolidates the reviewers' feedback and submits a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. In cases where reviewers disagree significantly, a third reviewer may be consulted, or the editorial board may engage in further discussion.
2. Final Decision: Based on the reviewer feedback and editorial evaluation, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision. The possible outcomes include:
   1. Accept: The manuscript is approved for publication.
   2. Minor Revisions: The manuscript is conditionally accepted pending minor corrections, which must be addressed by the authors before final acceptance.
   3. Major Revisions: The manuscript is returned to the authors with a request for substantial changes. Upon resubmission, the manuscript may undergo further review.
   4. Reject: The manuscript is deemed unsuitable for publication in its current form.

1. Minor Revisions: Authors are given a short timeframe (typically 2–4 weeks) to make the requested minor revisions. These are generally reviewed by the handling editor before the final acceptance.
2. Major Revisions: For manuscripts requiring significant revisions, authors are given a longer timeframe (4–8 weeks) to address reviewer comments. The revised manuscript may undergo additional rounds of peer review depending on the extent of the changes.
3. Resubmission of Rejected Manuscripts: If a manuscript is rejected, authors are typically not invited to resubmit unless substantial revisions have been suggested. In such cases, the revised manuscript may be treated as a new submission.

1. Notification: Authors are informed of the decision via email, including detailed reviewer feedback and any editorial comments. For accepted manuscripts, this includes instructions for preparing the final version.
2. Appeals Process: If authors believe the decision was made in error or that reviewer feedback was biased or unfair, they may appeal the decision. Appeals must be submitted in writing and will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief. The editorial team will re-evaluate the manuscript in light of the appeal, though decisions following an appeal are final.

1. Final Submission: Upon acceptance, authors are required to submit the final version of their manuscript, adhering to the journal’s formatting and publication guidelines. Any outstanding issues such as copyright forms and licensing agreements (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) must be completed.
2. Copyediting and Proofreading: The manuscript undergoes copyediting to ensure clarity, grammatical correctness, and adherence to GPR’s style guidelines. Authors are provided with proofs for final approval before publication.
3. Online Publication: Once finalized, the manuscript is published online in the next available issue of GPR.

1. Conflict of Interest: Editors, reviewers, and authors must declare any conflicts of interest. Manuscripts where such conflicts could affect the decision-making process are reassigned to impartial editors.
2. Research Ethics: Manuscripts involving human or animal subjects must adhere to ethical research guidelines. Any ethical concerns raised during review will result in additional scrutiny or rejection.
3. Data Integrity: Editors ensure that all data presented in the manuscripts are transparent and replicable. Any suspected data fabrication or manipulation is thoroughly investigated.