This page explains how to complete a review assignment in the GRHAS journal system. The Reviewer Guidelines provides the assessment criteria; this procedure covers accepting an invitation, reading the files and submitting the report.

1. Respond to the invitation

Review the manuscript title, abstract and deadline. Accept or decline through the link or review record supplied by the journal. If you decline, notify the editor promptly so another specialist can be invited. You may suggest an appropriate expert when you can do so without sharing confidential material.

Before acceptance, declare any relationship that could affect independence and identify any important aspect outside your expertise. Request a different deadline when necessary.

2. Read the submission

After accepting, access the manuscript and supplementary files through the assigned review record. Read the complete contribution before forming a recommendation. Examine how the title and abstract represent the analysis, how sources or data support it, and how the argument relates to the journal’s scope.

Record specific concerns with page or section references. Where a necessary file is unavailable or the submission is incomplete, contact the editor rather than drawing a conclusion from missing material.

3. Write and submit the report

Provide an overall assessment, major issues and minor corrections in a clear sequence. Explain the action needed for each major issue and distinguish essential revisions from suggestions for a future study. Select the recommendation that follows from that assessment.

Submit comments for the authors and any confidential comments for the editor in their designated fields. Attach a file only when it is needed to make the review usable. Check that the author-facing report and any attachment do not reveal your identity or confidential information.

4. Assess a revision

The editor may ask you to review a revised manuscript and the authors’ response. Examine whether the central concerns have been addressed and explain any remaining issue. A new requirement should be justified by the revised work or a material problem that affects publication.

Submit the follow-up assessment through the same review record. Direct questions and integrity concerns to the editor. The journal communicates decisions to authors and manages any appeal through its editorial procedures.