Peer Review Policy

The Global Journal of Biosciences and Environment (GJBE) evaluates every submission through a rigorous process of editorial screening and independent expert review. This page describes the journal's peer review model, workflow, and the standards used to select and manage reviewers.

Review Model

GJBE employs double-blind peer review: the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors, throughout the review process. Authors should therefore ensure their manuscript file and any embedded metadata do not reveal their identity or institutional affiliation prior to submission.

Review Workflow

1. Initial technical and scope screening (typically 1–2 weeks) — the editorial office checks that the submission is complete, correctly formatted, within scope, and has passed similarity screening (see the Plagiarism Policy).
2. Editorial assessment — a handling editor assesses the manuscript for originality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's aims and scope, and may desk-reject manuscripts that clearly do not meet minimum standards at this stage.
3. Double-blind review by qualified reviewers (typically 4–8 weeks) — normally at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise are invited; a third reviewer may be added where the first two assessments diverge significantly.
4. Editorial decision (typically 1–2 weeks after reviews are received) — the handling editor weighs the reviewers' recommendations and issues one of: accept, minor revision, major revision, resubmit for review, or reject.
5. Final quality check — before publication, accepted manuscripts undergo a final editorial and technical check (references, figures, formatting, metadata) prior to copyediting and production.

Total time from submission to first decision is typically 6–10 weeks, though this may vary with reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected by the handling editor based on subject-matter expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest with the authors. Author-suggested reviewers (submitted with the manuscript) may be considered but are not guaranteed to be used, and at least one independently identified reviewer is typically included per manuscript.

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers provide one of five recommendations, consistent with the journal's Reviewer Guidelines: accept, minor revision, major revision, resubmit for review, or reject.

Confidentiality

The peer review process is strictly confidential. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, and manuscript content is not disclosed by reviewers to third parties. See the journal's Privacy Statement for how reviewer and author data is handled.

Appeals

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may appeal via the journal's Complaints and Appeals procedure.