Peer Review Process

The peer review process is central to ensuring the scholarly integrity, originality, and quality of research published in the Global Humanities Review (GHR). The journal adheres to a structured and transparent system that promotes academic excellence while offering authors constructive, fair, and timely feedback.

Published by the Global Humanities Research Forum (GHRF), the journal adheres to strict ethical publishing standards in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Submission and Initial Screening

Submission:
Authors must submit their manuscripts electronically via the designated submission portal or through email at ghreditor@zohomail.in.

Initial Screening:
Upon receipt, each submission undergoes a preliminary editorial review to verify its relevance to the journal's scope, adherence to submission guidelines, and compliance with ethical and formatting standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements may be declined before peer review.

2. Plagiarism Check

All manuscripts are checked using reliable plagiarism detection software before being sent for review. Submissions with substantial overlap, plagiarism, or unethical content are immediately rejected.

3. Double-Masked Peer Review

Reviewer Assignment:
Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.

Anonymity:
Global Humanities Review employs a double-masked review system, ensuring that both the author and the reviewer remain anonymous throughout the process.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following parameters:

  • Originality and Scholarly Value: Novelty and contribution to the field.
  • Theoretical and Methodological Strength: Soundness, clarity, and academic rigour.
  • Argumentation and Organisation: Coherence, logical flow, and depth of analysis.
  • Relevance and Scope: Alignment with the journal's mission and focus areas.
  • Ethical Standards: Proper citation, authenticity of data, and responsible research practices.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Based on their evaluation, reviewers recommend one of the following outcomes:

  • Accept: Publishable as submitted or with minimal edits.
  • Minor Revisions: Requires limited corrections or clarifications.
  • Major Revisions: Substantial rewriting or restructuring needed; resubmission required.
  • Reject: Does not meet the journal's academic or ethical standards.

6. Editorial Decision and Revision Process

The Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor makes the final decision after reviewing the reports and ensuring consistency with journal policies. Authors receive detailed reviewer comments and are expected to revise their manuscripts accordingly.

  • Minor Revisions: Authors are given up to 10 days to submit revised manuscripts.
  • Major Revisions: Authors are allowed up to 3 weeks; after this period, the revised version may undergo another round of review.

7. Final Acceptance and Publication

After final approval, manuscripts are copyedited, formatted, and proofread to ensure quality and consistency. The paper is then scheduled for publication in the next available issue of Global Humanities Review under the open-access model for global accessibility.

8. Disclosure of AI Use

Authors must explicitly disclose any use of generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Copilot) in manuscript preparation, data processing, or language editing.

  • AI tools cannot be listed as authors.
  • Failure to disclose the use of AI may result in rejection or retraction, in accordance with COPE standards.

9. Ethical and Institutional Compliance

Authors must confirm that their work complies with institutional ethical standards, including permissions for human or cultural data, and must disclose any funding sources or conflicts of interest.

10. Turnaround Time

The average review cycle takes 1 to 2 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the extent of revisions required. The editorial team strives to ensure a transparent, timely, and constructive review experience for all contributors.

11. Confidentiality and Transparency

All submissions, reviewer identities, and editorial communications are treated as strictly confidential. The journal upholds complete transparency and impartiality throughout the review process to maintain trust within the academic community.

For any queries regarding the peer review process or editorial policies, please contact:
ghreditor@zohomail.in