Peer Review

JGTSS uses double-anonymous external peer review for substantive research articles, scholarly reviews and research case studies. Authors and reviewers are not routinely told one another’s identities; the editors administering the submission know the author identities and retain responsibility for selecting competent, independent reviewers. Anonymity reduces avoidable influence but cannot guarantee that a distinctive study or public preprint is unrecognizable.

Before external review

The editorial office checks completeness, fit, originality, author declarations, ethical oversight, reporting and permissions. A submission may be returned for missing information or declined because it falls outside scope, lacks a defensible design or raises an unresolved ethical problem. Authors submit a separate title page and a manuscript with names, affiliations, acknowledgements and identifying file properties removed. Necessary self-citation remains accurate and is expressed without revealing authorship unnecessarily.

The handling editor selects at least two independent external experts able to evaluate the question, evidence and method. They must be outside the journal’s editorial staff and board and free of relevant conflicts with the authors or the work. Social-science submissions may require complementary expertise, for example a substantive specialist and a statistician or a language-qualified ethnographer. Reviewer identities and affiliations are checked using sources beyond author-supplied email addresses. Authors may suggest reviewers or explain a requested exclusion; editors retain discretion and do not rely solely on those suggestions.

What reviewers assess

Reviewers examine the coherence of the research question, relevance of the literature, evidence selection, methodological transparency, analytical reasoning, ethical treatment of people and communities, and the proportionality of the conclusions. They should consider appropriate qualitative or interpretive standards instead of demanding a quantitative design merely because it is familiar. Reviewers check relevant supplementary material and identify data or reporting that is needed for assessment.

A reviewer must disclose relationships that could compromise impartiality, decline work outside their competence, protect unpublished material and provide a reasoned, respectful report. They may recommend references only for a scholarly reason. They must not contact authors directly, delegate the task without permission, or use a generative system to supply the substantive judgment. Confidential content must not be uploaded to an unapproved external tool.

Decisions and revisions

At least two substantive independent reports are required before a research manuscript can be accepted. Invitation counts or superficial endorsements do not satisfy this requirement. The handling editor evaluates the reasons given, seeks additional expertise when a material disagreement remains and makes or recommends a decision of rejection, revision or acceptance. Reviewer recommendations are advisory; acceptance is not determined by a simple vote.

Authors receive an editorial explanation and the relevant reports, with abusive or identifying content removed where necessary. A revision includes a point-by-point response and clearly identifies changes. Authors may disagree with a request when they provide an evidence-based explanation. Substantial revisions normally return to suitable reviewers; further rounds are used only where they resolve material questions. A new concern arising late in review is communicated openly rather than hidden in an unexplained decision.

Special handling and transparency

An editor’s, board member’s or guest editor’s own manuscript is controlled by an unconflicted editor; the person concerned has no access to its reviewer selection or decision process. The same standard applies to partner-institution submissions. Short editorial perspectives and correspondence that contain no original research may receive editorial assessment, but their type and review status are explicitly labelled. A commentary containing substantive new research undergoes external review.

The journal’s previously stated four-to-six-week review period is an indicative aspiration, not a guaranteed decision deadline. Authors are informed when a delay becomes material and may request an update or withdraw before publication without a withdrawal charge. Publication of signed reports or identities requires specific consent and a clearly described arrangement; it does not arise automatically from a thematic section label. Appeals follow Complaints and Editorial Appeals and are assessed outside the original decision chain.

Application of the revised process

The revised review requirements apply from 15 September 2026. Acceptance of substantive research requires two or more completed, independent external reports, with both author and reviewer identities protected under the stated model. Staff must check masking and access permissions, including independent handling of submissions by editors and partner-centre researchers. Earlier files retain their actual review history and dates.

Last updated: 16 September 2026