Reviewer Guidelines

Peer reviewers play a central role in maintaining the quality and integrity of the Global Journal of Biosciences and Environment (GJBE). These guidelines describe what is expected of reviewers and the criteria used to evaluate manuscripts.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess each manuscript across five dimensions:

• Originality — Does the manuscript present new data, methods, or interpretation not previously published?
• Scientific rigor — Is the methodology sound, and is the data analysis appropriate to the study design and claims made?
• Clarity — Is the manuscript well organized, clearly written, and does it present its argument in a logical, accessible way?
• Relevance — Does the work align with the journal's aims and scope, and will it be of interest to the journal's readership?
• Ethics — Are all required approvals (ethics committee, informed consent, animal welfare, etc.), disclosures, and permissions present and adequate?

Reviewer Responsibilities

• Evaluate manuscripts objectively and provide constructive, specific feedback that will help the authors (whether or not the manuscript is ultimately accepted).
• Assess originality, methodological soundness, and clarity of presentation as outlined above.
• Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe (normally 3–4 weeks), or notify the editorial office promptly if an extension is needed.
• Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript and the review process throughout and after the review — manuscripts under review must not be shared, discussed, or cited without permission.
• Disclose any conflict of interest before accepting a review invitation, and decline the invitation where a substantial conflict exists.
• Alert the editors to any substantial similarity between the manuscript under review and any other published or submitted work of which the reviewer has personal knowledge.
• Provide recommendations based on scientific merit alone, without regard to authors' nationality, gender, religious or political beliefs, or institutional affiliation.

Recommendation Categories

At the conclusion of review, reviewers select one of the following recommendations:

• Accept — the manuscript is scientifically sound and ready for publication with no or only trivial changes.
• Minor revision — the manuscript is sound but requires small clarifications, additional detail, or editorial corrections before acceptance.
• Major revision — the manuscript has merit but requires substantial changes to methodology, analysis, or presentation, and would benefit from a further round of review.
• Resubmit for review — the current manuscript is not acceptable, but a substantially reworked version addressing fundamental concerns may be considered as a new submission.
• Reject — the manuscript has fundamental flaws, falls outside the journal's scope, or does not meet the journal's standards for publication.

Writing a Constructive Review

Reviewers are encouraged to structure comments as: (1) a brief summary of the manuscript and its contribution; (2) major concerns that affect the validity or significance of the conclusions; (3) minor concerns (wording, formatting, minor data presentation issues); and (4) confidential comments to the editor, where relevant, that should not be shared with the authors (e.g. suspicion of misconduct). Reviews should be respectful in tone and focused on the work, not the authors.

Recognition

GJBE values the time and expertise reviewers contribute. Reviewers may request formal acknowledgement of their service (e.g. for institutional records), and the journal aims to publish an annual list of contributing reviewers with their consent.