Peer review policy

Type of review

JGPCM uses double-anonymous peer review (also called double-blind review): reviewers do not know the authors' identities, and authors do not know the reviewers' identities. This applies to research articles, review articles, theoretical papers, methods articles, case studies, and practice notes. Editorials and book reviews are clearly labelled and receive editorial review by two editors instead of external peer review.

Who reviews

• Every research manuscript that passes desk screening goes to at least two independent reviewers.
• At least one reviewer holds a doctorate or has an established research record in the manuscript's area.
• Practitioners with relevant expertise may serve as the second reviewer where professional knowledge matters. Every practice note is reviewed by one academic and one practitioner.
• Reviewers must not work at the same institution as any author, have collaborated with any author in the past three years, or have any other personal, professional, or financial conflict. Reviewers declare conflicts before accepting an invitation.
• Editorial board members may review, but a reviewer is never the editor who handles the manuscript.

The journal keeps a standing reviewer pool of researchers and practitioners who commit to reviewing two to four manuscripts a year.

How a submission is handled

1. Desk screening. An editor checks scope, completeness, anonymization, and language, screens the manuscript for similarity with published work, and runs research integrity checks (see the ethics policy). Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements are declined or returned without external review. Desk decisions are sent within 14 days.
2. Anonymization. The editorial office confirms that names, affiliations, acknowledgements, funding details, and self-identifying citations have been removed, and removes any that remain.
3. Reviewer assignment. The handling editor invites at least two reviewers with relevant expertise and no conflicts of interest.
4. Review. Reviewers assess originality, theoretical grounding, methodological soundness, ethical conduct, clarity, and contribution, and recommend accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject. Reviewers are asked to return reports within three weeks.
5. Decision. The handling editor weighs the reports and decides. Where reviewers disagree substantially, the editor may invite an additional reviewer. Authors receive the anonymized reports with the decision.
6. Revision. Authors return a revised manuscript with a point-by-point response. The editor may send it back to the original reviewers.
7. Acceptance and publication. Accepted articles are copyedited, proofed by the authors, and published online with their received, accepted, and published dates.

We aim to send a first decision within about six weeks of desk acceptance. These are targets, not guarantees, and we never shorten review to meet a publication date.

Submissions from editors and board members

• The Editor-in-Chief does not submit research articles to JGPCM while serving in that role.
• Manuscripts from other editors, board members, or members of the reviewer pool are handled by an editor with no conflict of interest. The author is excluded from every discussion and decision about the manuscript, and it receives the same double-anonymous review as any other submission.
• Papers with at least one author who is an editor, board member, or reviewer for the journal make up no more than a quarter of the research papers in any issue.

Special issues and guest editors

The Editor-in-Chief remains responsible for all content in special issues. Guest editors are checked for relevant expertise before appointment. Papers submitted by guest editors are handled by an independent editor and make up no more than a quarter of the papers in a special issue. Special-issue papers go through the same review process as all other papers.

Confidentiality and AI tools

Manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers may not share them, cite them, or use them for any purpose other than the review. Reviewers must not upload any part of a manuscript or their report to a generative AI tool. Editors do not use AI tools to evaluate manuscripts or to make decisions. See the AI policy.

Records

The journal keeps the reviewer reports, decision letters, and dates for every manuscript it handles, so that the review of any published article can be verified if questions arise.

Appeals

Authors may appeal a decision by writing to editor@jgpcm.org within 30 days, explaining why they believe the decision was wrong. An editor who was not involved in the original decision reviews the appeal and may consult a further independent reviewer. The outcome of an appeal is final.

Recognition

With their permission, reviewers are thanked by name once a year on this site. Reviewers can ask for a certificate confirming the reviews they have completed.

JGPCM follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Questions about this policy, or about a manuscript under review: editor@jgpcm.org.