The Peer Review Process for GIIR

1. 1. Submission of paper

   The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to GIIR using the Paper online submission system.

2. 2. Editorial Office assessment

   The Editorial Office checks that the paper adheres to the requirements described in the GIIR Author Guidelines. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.

3. 3. Appraisal by the Editor

   The GIIR Editor assesses the paper, considering its scope, originality, and merits. S/he may reject the paper at this stage.

4. 4. Invitation to reviewers

   The editor invites potential reviewers, sending additional invitations as needed.

5. 5. Response to invitations

   Potential reviewers assess the invitation based on their expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability, then accept or decline. If declining, they may suggest alternative reviewers.

6. 6. The review is conducted

   The reviewer dedicates time to read the paper multiple times. The first read forms an initial impression; if major issues are found, they may reject the paper at this stage. Otherwise, they take detailed notes during subsequent readings to prepare a point-by-point review, which is submitted along with their recommendation (revise, accept, or reject).

7. 7. GIIR evaluates the reviews

   The editor considers all the returned reviews before making a decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer for another opinion before deciding.

8. 8. The decision is communicated

   The editor sends a decision email to the author, including any relevant reviewer comments. Comments will be anonymous if the GIIR follows a single-anonymous or double-anonymous peer review model.

9. 9. Next steps

   If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested, this follow-up review might be done by the editor.