Experts are assigned to evaluate the scholarly works to ensure high quality of published manuscript. However, peer reviewers do not make the decision to accept or reject papers but recommend their decision. The final decision authority rests solely with the journal editor. For peer review, the double blind peer-review process where the reviewers and author are anonymous to one another will be used.
The peer-review process can be broadly summarized into the following steps:
Submission of Manuscript
An author submits the paper to the Journal using the provision made under the Submit manuscript section.
Editorial Office Assessment
The Editorial checks if the paper falls within the aim andscope and authors guidelines of GJOBOH. The assessment does not cover the quality check of the submitted manuscript at this point but the paper may be returned for resubmission if the aims and scope or authors’ guideline in not properly followed.
Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)
The EIC checks the appropriateness of the manuscript for the Journal. The paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further if deemed inappropriate by the EIC. After a satisfactory assessment, the EIC will assign the manuscript to an Associate Editor who handles the peer review.
Invitation of and Consideration by Reviewers
The corresponding editor invites appropriate reviewers in consideration of their area of expertise, conflict of interest and availability. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number is obtained – a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 4 responses are required.
Review is Conducted
The reviewer reads the paper several times after which they fill the reviewers’ evaluation form.
Journal Evaluates the Reviews
The Corresponding editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer to get an extra opinion before making a decision.
The Decision is Communicated
The Associate Editor sends a decision email to the author, including any relevant reviewer comments.
If accepted, the paper is sent to production. Suppose the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor