Peer Review Policy

The Global South Journal of Applied Research (GSJAR) uses peer review to support academic quality, fairness, methodological soundness and editorial integrity. Every submission is first examined by the editorial office to determine whether it falls within the journal’s aims and scope, satisfies minimum scholarly and presentation requirements, and complies with relevant ethical and originality standards.

A manuscript may be declined during editorial screening when it is outside the journal’s scope, lacks a meaningful applied contribution, does not meet basic scholarly standards, contains substantial ethical or integrity concerns, is inadequately anonymised, or is not sufficiently developed for external assessment.

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are ordinarily evaluated through double-anonymous peer review, under which the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another during the review process. Authors must therefore remove names, affiliations, acknowledgements, self-identifying file properties and other unnecessary identifying information from the review manuscript.

Each research manuscript will normally be assessed by at least two suitably qualified reviewers. Where reports differ substantially, the editor may obtain an additional review or make a reasoned decision based on the evidence available. Reviewer recommendations are advisory; the final decision rests with the responsible editor.

Reviewers assess originality, relevance to GSJAR, engagement with scholarship, conceptual clarity, methodological appropriateness, research ethics, quality of analysis, validity of conclusions, contextual sensitivity and the practical, policy, professional or community contribution of the work.

Editorial decisions may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, resubmission for fresh consideration or rejection. Acceptance is not guaranteed merely because revisions have been requested or completed.

Manuscripts are treated as confidential throughout review. Editors and reviewers must declare relevant competing interests and must not use unpublished material for personal, professional or commercial advantage.

The journal seeks to complete reviews efficiently but does not guarantee a fixed decision period. Review duration may vary according to subject specialisation, reviewer availability, revision requirements and the complexity of ethical or methodological questions.