GGSR bases editorial assessment on the manuscript’s relevance, scholarly contribution, quality of reasoning and evidence, clarity, and compliance with research and publication ethics. These standards apply to regular submissions, invited work, special issues, and collections.

Initial assessment

The handling editor considers whether the paper addresses a question within the journal’s scope and makes a contribution that warrants external review. Assessment includes the engagement with existing scholarship, suitability of the design, transparency of sources and analysis, and the relationship between claims and evidence. Manuscripts may be declined without review where these requirements are not met.

The journal considers results irrespective of whether they support the authors’ initial expectations or a prevailing theory. Negative, null, or contrary findings should be reported with the same care as other results. Novelty does not compensate for unreliable evidence, and a topical policy issue does not by itself establish a scholarly contribution.

Decisions and revisions

Reviewers provide expert advice; authorized editors make decisions. Editors consider the reasoning in the reports rather than treating recommendations as a vote. They may request further advice where reports conflict, important questions remain, or additional expertise is needed.

Revision requests should identify the matters that require attention. Authors should respond to each point, locate relevant changes, and explain any reasoned disagreement. Revisions may lead to further review. Acceptance is communicated formally and remains subject to the completion of necessary production and publication requirements.

Fairness, independence, and conflicts

Assessment must not depend on nationality, institutional reputation, political affiliation, funding source, or ability to pay. Financial arrangements are separate from editorial judgement. Editors must disclose relevant conflicts and withdraw from handling their own submissions or work involving a compromising relationship. An independent editor manages such cases.

Confidentiality and responsible communication

Unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence are confidential. They must not be used for personal advantage or disclosed without authorization. Information may be shared with appropriate parties when necessary to examine an integrity concern, with safeguards proportionate to the purpose.

Authors should communicate through the submission system and answer requests for clarification accurately. Significant errors or newly identified ethical issues should be reported promptly, including after acceptance. A reasoned appeal about a substantive error or procedural problem may be submitted under Complaints & Appeals.