GGSR uses double-anonymous peer review for scholarly manuscripts proceeding beyond editorial screening. Authors and reviewers are not routinely informed of each other’s identities. Public preprints, a distinctive case, or prior conference discussion may make authorship recognizable; the model supports impartial assessment but cannot guarantee anonymity in every circumstance.

Selection and independence

Research manuscripts sent for external assessment are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise. The editor selects reviewers and may seek additional advice. Authors may suggest suitably qualified reviewers or request exclusion of particular people, with reasons; appointments remain the editor’s responsibility.

Reviewer suggestions should identify genuine expertise and disclose relevant relationships. Reviewers must declare interests before accepting an assignment, decline where a conflict prevents impartial assessment, and notify the editor if the work falls outside their competence or they cannot meet the proposed schedule.

What reviewers assess

• The research question and contribution to governance scholarship.
• The accuracy and fairness of engagement with existing literature.
• The fit between the design, case or sample selection, analytical procedures, and claims.
• The provenance and adequacy of evidence, including appropriate handling of uncertainty and alternative explanations.
• The clarity of presentation, limitations, and implications beyond the particular setting.
• Relevant ethical issues and the completeness of declarations and supporting information.

A report should identify strengths as well as problems and distinguish essential revisions from suggestions that would extend the study. Criticism should address the work respectfully and provide reasons that the author and editor can evaluate. Suspected misconduct or confidential concerns should be raised with the editor.

Reviewer responsibilities

Manuscripts and correspondence must be kept confidential. Reviewers must not use unpublished ideas or data for their own benefit, contact authors about the assignment without authorization, or impose irrelevant citations. Material must not be uploaded to unauthorized AI services. Reviewers remain accountable for their reports and should advise the editor of any limitation in their assessment.

Decision and author response

The editor assesses the reports and determines whether to accept, request revision, reject, or obtain further advice. A favourable recommendation does not guarantee acceptance. Authors receiving a revision request should provide a point-by-point response, a revised manuscript, and an explanation of changes or reasoned disagreement. Keep review files anonymous where required.

A revised paper may return to the original reviewers or be assessed with additional expertise. Indicative intervals appear in Publication Process; reviewer availability and the extent of revision can affect the schedule. Substantive procedural concerns may be raised through Complaints & Appeals.