Publication Process
GGSR processes submissions through administrative checks, editorial assessment, peer review, revision, and production. Authors can follow manuscript correspondence through the submission system. Each stage has a distinct purpose; passing an earlier stage does not determine the outcome of the next.
Submission and initial assessment
Submit the manuscript, separate title page, supporting files, metadata, and declarations through the online system. The Editorial Office checks file completeness, anonymity, readability, and the information needed to process the submission. Authors may be asked to correct technical problems before an editor assesses the paper.
The editor evaluates fit with the journal’s scope, the clarity and originality of the contribution, the adequacy of methods and evidence, and ethical compliance. Work that is outside scope or has substantial scholarly or ethical deficiencies may be declined without external review. A desk decision allows authors to seek another venue without waiting for an unnecessary review process.
External review and revision
Research manuscripts progressing to external review are normally assessed by at least two independent reviewers under a double-anonymous model. The editor considers the substance of the reports, including differences in expertise and reasoning, and may seek further advice. Reviews are advisory; the editor makes the decision.
A revision request identifies matters to address and a proposed deadline. Authors should provide a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining changes or reasoned disagreement. Substantial revisions may be returned to reviewers. A favourable report or request for further revision is not formal acceptance.
Acceptance, production, and publication
Formal acceptance is communicated by the authorized editor. Accepted work proceeds to copyediting, formatting, metadata checks, and author proof review. Authors should check the accuracy of the edited text, tables, figures, references, names, affiliations, and declarations. Proof review is intended to correct production errors; significant new analysis or changes to conclusions must be discussed with the editor.
The standard APC is requested after acceptance. Once production is complete, the article is published as the Version of Record under the stated licence. Later substantive errors or integrity concerns are addressed through linked editorial notices rather than unrecorded replacement.
Indicative intervals
| Stage | Usual estimate |
|---|---|
| Administrative checks | 3–7 working days |
| Editorial screening and reviewer invitation | Approximately 2–4 weeks |
| External review | Approximately 3–5 weeks after reviewers are confirmed |
| First decision | Generally 6–10 weeks from submission |
| Author revision period | Usually 1–2 weeks for minor revisions and 3–4 weeks for major revisions |
These estimates are not cumulative guarantees. Complexity, reviewer availability, further revisions, and ethical enquiries may change the schedule. Authors needing additional revision time should contact the editor before the deadline.
Communication and withdrawal
Use the submission system for manuscript correspondence and include the identifier in any email enquiry. To withdraw, give the Editorial Office a clear request approved by the authors and obtain confirmation before submitting the active manuscript elsewhere. See Complaints & Appeals if a substantive procedural problem requires review.