GRHAS uses double-anonymous peer review for research articles. Reviewers assess the manuscript without being told the authors’ identities, and reviewer identities are withheld from authors. The handling editor organises assessment and makes the publication decision.

Initial editorial assessment

The editor evaluates the question, contribution, fit with the journal and readiness for specialist review. This includes the quality of presentation, treatment of sources, completeness of declarations and any ethical or rights issue requiring clarification. A manuscript may be returned for preparation changes or declined at this stage when its contribution falls outside the journal’s scope or the necessary scholarly basis is absent.

The editor assesses each manuscript according to its article type. A theoretical exploration requires a developed argument; a case study requires a justified case and a broader contribution; an artistic research submission requires a clear relationship between practice, documentation and scholarly analysis.

Independent assessment

Suitable research manuscripts are referred to specialists with relevant subject, methodological and contextual expertise. Reviewers are asked to disclose relationships or interests affecting their independence. Authors may identify a reviewer conflict and explain its basis in the cover letter; the editor determines appointments.

Reports examine originality, engagement with scholarship, quality of sources and methods, coherence of interpretation and significance. Reviewers explain their concerns and suggest changes the authors can act on. When reports diverge or leave an important issue unresolved, the editor may seek further advice.

Decision and revision

The editor considers the reasoning in the reports and communicates a decision with an explanation. The outcome may be rejection, an invitation to make major or minor revisions, or acceptance. Reviewer recommendations inform the decision rather than determine it by a vote.

A revision invitation specifies the main concerns and a response deadline. Authors submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point reply. The editor assesses whether the concerns have been resolved and may return the manuscript for further review.

Different formats and special issues

Book reviews, interviews, conference reports and editorial contributions receive editorial assessment suited to their format. Substantial research within those formats can be externally reviewed. Special-issue research follows the same standards as regular submissions, with the Editor-in-Chief retaining oversight.

Editors and guest editors do not decide on their own submissions. A conflicted editor transfers responsibility to an independent editor. Manuscripts, reports and correspondence remain confidential during review.

Communication

Authors can monitor the submission record and contact the handling editor about a delay or revision extension. Review duration depends on specialist availability and the work needed to address the reports. The Complaints & Appeals Policy explains how to challenge a decision or procedural concern.