Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers make an essential contribution to the quality, credibility and fairness of the Global South Journal of Applied Research (GSJAR). A reviewer should accept an invitation only when the manuscript falls within the reviewer’s competence and the review can be completed within the requested period.

A reviewer who lacks appropriate expertise, cannot complete the assessment on time, recognises the manuscript or author despite anonymisation, or has a relevant personal, professional, financial, institutional, collaborative or competitive interest should inform the editor promptly. Declining an unsuitable invitation helps prevent delay and protects the impartiality of the process.

Manuscripts and related files must be treated as strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share the submission, consult another person without editorial permission, upload the manuscript to an unauthorised artificial-intelligence system, or use unpublished ideas, arguments, methods or data for personal advantage.

A review should evaluate the significance and originality of the work, suitability for the journal, clarity of the research problem, use of relevant literature, appropriateness of the design and methods, adequacy of ethical safeguards, quality of analysis, support for conclusions, limitations, contextual interpretation and applied contribution.

Comments should be specific, balanced, evidence-based and respectful. Reviewers should identify strengths as well as deficiencies and explain what changes are necessary. Hostile language, personal remarks, discriminatory observations and demands for irrelevant citations are unacceptable.

Reviewers should alert the editor confidentially when they suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified information, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts, unethical research, citation manipulation or other misconduct. They should not independently contact the author or the author’s institution.

The recommendation submitted to the editor should be consistent with the written review. The editor retains responsibility for the final decision and may ask the reviewer to assess a revised manuscript.

By accepting a review assignment, the reviewer agrees to uphold confidentiality, impartiality, academic fairness and the journal’s policies on competing interests, publication ethics and responsible use of artificial intelligence.