For Reviewers

1. Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, fair, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts, maintaining professionalism, confidentiality, and respect for authors’ intellectual contributions. Reviews should be constructive, evidence-based, and support both editorial decision-making and the improvement of manuscript quality. Reviewers must not disclose or use unpublished materials for personal advantage, and the use of generative artificial intelligence tools in the review process is strictly prohibited to safeguard confidentiality and data integrity. Any potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed, and suspected ethical concerns should be reported promptly. Reviews should address key aspects such as originality, scientific validity, methodological rigor, and relevance, and be completed within the journal’s expected timelines. Editors may moderate review reports to ensure appropriateness before sharing them with authors. Please refer to GASF Ethical Guidelines - Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers.

2. General Guidelines for Reviewers

2.1 Reviewer Responsibilities and Evaluation Criteria

Peer review supports editors in making informed editorial decisions and assists authors in improving the quality of their manuscripts through constructive feedback. Reviewers should provide detailed, constructive, and, where appropriate, point-by-point recommendations to support both editorial decision-making and the improvement of manuscript quality.

Review reports should be clear, well-structured, and evidence-based. Reviewers are encouraged to assess the manuscript’s originality, scientific validity, methodological rigor, data analysis and interpretation, and overall relevance to the journal’s scope. Where appropriate, reviewers should also identify ethical considerations, potential limitations, and areas requiring clarification.

Reviewers should clearly highlight significant weaknesses that may affect the suitability of the manuscript for publication, enabling authors to understand editorial decisions and improve their work. Comments should be professional, specific, and aimed at enhancing the manuscript’s quality.

Editors reserve the right to review and, if necessary, edit reviewer reports prior to sharing them with authors, in order to ensure clarity, professionalism, and compliance with journal standards. Editors may remove any inappropriate, offensive, or confidential content. All review reports must remain respectful and professional.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, thorough, and constructive evaluations of manuscripts, addressing the following aspects:

Summary of contributions: Provide a concise overview of the manuscript’s main contributions.

Critical assessment: Identify any significant flaws that may affect the suitability of the manuscript for publication, with clear and detailed explanations.

Originality and relevance: Evaluate the novelty, significance, and relevance of the work to the journal’s scope and the broader field. Consider whether the research question is clearly defined and original, whether the results advance current knowledge, and whether conclusions are justified and appropriately supported by the data. Hypotheses should be clearly identified as such.

Methodological rigor: Assess the validity and robustness of the methods, the quality and integrity of the data, and the appropriateness of analytical and statistical approaches. Consider whether the study is well designed and technically sound, whether the data are sufficient to support the conclusions, and whether methods, tools, software, and materials are described in enough detail to ensure reproducibility. Where applicable, comment on the availability and reliability of underlying data.

Overall merit and contribution: Evaluate the overall value of the work, including whether it meaningfully advances knowledge in the field, addresses important questions, or provides scientifically valid results (including well-supported negative results).

Interest to the Readers: Consider whether the findings are of interest to the journal’s readership and whether the manuscript has relevance to a broad or specialized audience.

Presentation quality: Comment on the clarity of language, accuracy of grammar, and coherence of the manuscript. Assess whether the results are clearly presented, figures and tables meet academic standards (including proper labeling), references are appropriate and correctly cited, and language are easy to understand.

References and citation practices: Consider whether the cited literature is appropriate, relevant, and up to date (e.g., reflecting recent developments in the past five years where applicable). Reviewers should also note any excessive or inappropriate self-citation.

Scope of expertise: Indicate any particular part of the manuscript, data, or analyses that you feel is outside the scope of your expertise, or that you were unable to assess fully.

Ethical considerations: Report any potential ethical concerns, including issues related to research integrity, data use, authorship, or publication ethics. Reviewers should consider whether the study complies with recognized ethical standards (e.g., COPE guidelines) and whether appropriate approvals and consents have been obtained where required. If reviewers become aware of any scientific misconduct or fraud, plagiarism, or any other unethical conduct in relation to the manuscript, they should immediately raise these concerns with the in-house editor.

Review reports should be clear, structured, and constructive, and are expected to include the following elements:

Summary of the manuscript: A brief paragraph outlining the aims of the study and its main contributions.

General comments: An overall assessment highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Any identified deficiencies should be described in a constructive manner, with clear and specific explanations to enable authors to respond effectively and improve their work. Comments should be presented in a structured format (preferably numbered).

Confidential comments to the Editor: A concise statement summarizing the reviewer’s final recommendation, including the rationale for the decision. These comments are intended for the Editor only and will not be shared with the authors.

Reviewers are requested to provide an overall recommendation regarding the next stage of the manuscript:

Accept

The manuscript is accepted for publication, either in its current form or subject to minor editorial revisions. Once all final formatting and technical requirements are met, the manuscript proceeds to the production stage.

Minor Revisions

The manuscript requires limited revisions that do not substantially affect its scientific content. Authors are typically given a short timeframe (e.g., one week) to submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed, point-by-point response to reviewer comments. The revised version may be assessed by the Academic Editor and, where appropriate, returned to reviewers.

Major Revisions

The manuscript requires substantial changes, such as improvements to methodology, analysis, or interpretation. Authors must provide a comprehensive response addressing all reviewer concerns. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, given their familiarity with the work. A maximum of two rounds of major revision is generally permitted. In cases where original reviewers are unavailable or additional expertise is required, the editor may invite new reviewers.

Reject

The manuscript is declined due to significant concerns, such as insufficient novelty, methodological flaws, lack of scientific rigor, or failure to meet the journal’s scope or standards. Rejected manuscripts will not proceed further in the editorial process.

For collected review reports, editors will evaluate their quality and validity. Reports lacking sufficient detail or providing a recommended decision without adequate justification will be considered ineffective. If editors have any questions regarding a review report, they may contact the reviewer for clarification.

2.2 Potential Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and should decline invitations when such conflicts may affect impartiality. Possible conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to):

Affiliation with the same institution as any author;

Collaboration, co-authorship, or academic association with any author within the past five years;

Personal relationships, rivalry, or bias involving any author;

Financial interests that may be affected by publication;

Any other non-financial conflicts (political, personal, ideological, academic, or commercial).

For more information, please refer to GASF Ethical Guidelines – Conflict of Interest.

2.3 Peer Review Manipulation

GASF maintains a strict policy against peer review manipulation. Any attempt to interfere with or improperly influence the peer review process is considered serious academic misconduct. All cases of suspected manipulation are handled in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

2.4 Privacy and Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to GASF journals must be treated as strictly confidential. Authors entrust reviewers with unpublished work, and all materials must be handled with full respect for privacy and data protection.

Reviewers must not retain, copy, share, or use any part of a manuscript after the review process, nor disclose information obtained through peer review—including data, discussions, reports, correspondence, or review status—without editorial permission.

Manuscripts must not be shared with third parties, and reviewers should take precautions to avoid revealing their identity, including removing identifying information from reports and file metadata.

Unpublished work and ideas obtained during peer review must not be used for personal benefit, research, or publication prior to official publication.

2.5 Benefits for Reviewers

The journal values the essential contributions of peer reviewers in maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing. To recognize their efforts, GASF offers the following:

1) Certificates of reviewing may be provided upon request as formal acknowledgment of completed reviews.

2) Experienced and high-performing reviewers may be considered for appointment to the Editorial Board, based on the quality of their reviews and their academic contributions.

3) Review reports are evaluated by Academic Editors in terms of scientific rigor, clarity, and usefulness in improving the manuscript. These evaluations may serve as a reference for the selection and potential promotion of Reviewer Board Members.

4) Based on reviewing performance, reviewers may be eligible for discounts or waivers of Article Processing Charges (APCs) for future submissions. In addition, outstanding reviewers may be recognized through annual evaluations conducted by the editorial office and awarded certificates.

5) Reviewers may register a profile on the Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service, where their peer review contributions can be recorded and credited for participating journals.

2.6 Qualifications for Reviewers

Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the quality and integrity of the scholarly record. GASF journals require that peer review be conducted with academic rigor and subject expertise to ensure the thorough and fair evaluation of all submitted manuscripts.

Eligible reviewers should meet the following criteria:

Hold a PhD degree or an equivalent doctoral qualification.

Demonstrate relevant expertise in the subject area of the submitted manuscript, supported by a strong and verifiable publication record (e.g., Scopus, ORCID, or other recognized academic databases).

Be established scholars with demonstrated experience in the relevant field of research.

Hold an official and recognized affiliation with a higher education or research institution.

2.7 Call for Applications: Reviewer Board Member

The journal assembles the Reviewer Board which has the excellent reviewers inside to improve the quality and speed of peer review process of the papers. Excellent reviewers must be considered as experienced researchers who make the contribution in reviewing manuscripts regularly and providing rigorous and high-quality review reports for manuscripts.

The responsibilities and benefits for members are the same as those for regular reviewers, with the following additions:

1) Reviewer Board certificates will be provided by the journal;

2) All members are announced on the journal's website.

3) Every member has the priority consideration to enroll into the Editorial Board based on the comprehensive evaluation.

To be included in our reviewer database or Reviewer Board, interested scholars are invited to submit an application letter and updated CV to the email address of Editorial Office for consideration.

3. Peer-Review & Editorial Process 

GASF is committed to advancing global scientific communication by publishing high-quality, peer-reviewed research across diverse disciplines. GASF journals adopt a double-blind peer review process in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation. All research articles and review papers are assessed by at least two independent experts in the relevant field. Peer review aims to ensure the integrity, validity, and scientific merit of published research through an objective evaluation of its originality, methodological rigor, and significance. Please refer to GASF Submission & Peer-review - Editorial Process.