All manuscripts submitted to GaBI Journal are subject to a rigorous peer review process.

We welcome suggestions for referees from the author though these recommendations may or may not be used. Names, postal and email addresses of three to four experts in the appropriate area of research should accompany each manuscript submission. The Editor-in-Chief’s decision on the choice of peer reviewers should be final. Referees suggested should not be from the same institution as the author and should have expert knowledge of the subject. You should not have substantially worked with the reviewer in the past few years, and in particular, this should not be someone who has already reviewed or otherwise contributed to the manuscript. To the best of your knowledge, reviewers should not have conflicts (financial, personal) which would interfere with their objectivity. Selected scientist(s) will be invited to act as referee(s).

Manuscripts are received with the explicit understanding that they are not under simultaneous consideration by any other publication.

The practice of peer review is to ensure that good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out on all reputable scientific journals. Our referees therefore play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of GaBI Journal and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.

Papers such as editorial, news items, abstracted scientific articles written by GaBI Journal editors do not undergo external peer review.

Special report, supplement, or conference proceedings may have different peer review procedures involving, for example, guest editors, conference organisers or scientific committees. Authors contributing to these projects may receive full details of the peer review process on request from the editorial office. Prospective organisers of special report, supplement or conference proceedings should contact the Editorin- Chief/Publisher in the first instance to agree the appropriateness of content, the number and length of papers, the refereeing process (including the names of prospective referees), and the timescale for receipt of final copy after reviewing.

Initial manuscript evaluation

To save time for peer reviewers, the Science Editor will conduct preliminary English language check of all submitted manuscripts; neither editing nor comments will be made to the manuscript at this stage. Those manuscripts rejected at this stage have poor grammar or English language and the authors will normally be informed within two weeks of receipt for manuscript re-submission. If accepted, the manuscript will enter the peer review process.

The Editor-in-Chief first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those manuscripts that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to at least two experts for peer review.

Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will normally be informed within two weeks of receipt.

Selecting peer reviewers

Referees are matched to the manuscript according to their expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and our own previous experience of a reviewer’s characteristics. For instance, avoiding those who are slow, careless, or do not provide reasoning for their views, whether harsh or lenient. We check with potential reviewers before sending them manuscript to review. The journal reviewer database is constantly being updated.

Referee report

Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

• is original
• is methodologically sound and adequately described
• follows appropriate ethical guidelines
• has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
• has appropriate references that are up to date and relevant.

Referees are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process.

Type of peer review

GaBI Journal employs double blind reviewing, where both the referee and author remain anonymous throughout the process, if possible, with neither referee from the country of the submitting author.

Duration of review process

Typically the manuscript will be reviewed within three to five months. Should the referees’ reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed a further expert opinion (third referee) will be sought. All our referees sign a Conflict of Interest Disclosure statement. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the initial referees within one week. Referees may request more than one revision of a manuscript.

Editor-in-Chief’s decision is final

Referees advise their decision to accept or reject the manuscript to the Editor-in-Chief, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript. The decision will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees, and may include verbatim comments by the referees.

For any general questions and comments about the peer review process, the journal or its editorial policies that are not addressed here, we encourage reviewers to contact us.

Becoming a referee for GaBI Journal

If you are not currently a referee for GaBI Journal but would like to become a referee for GaBI Journal, please contact the Editor-in-Chief or the Publisher.

The benefits of refereeing for GaBI Journal include the opportunity to see and evaluate the latest work in your research area at an early stage. You may also be able to cite your work for GaBI Journal as part of your professional development requirements for various professional societies and organisations.

Submitting an appeal

Peer review by editors and external reviewers is usually based on a mix of evidence and opinion. We aim for a good and fair appraisal, but we appreciate that peer review does not necessarily always lead to the best decision. We welcome serious appeals, and many succeed – particularly when the authors rebut any scientific criticisms constructively and in detail in their appeal letter, and offer to submit a revised and clarified version of the paper. Click here to submit an appeal.