The GLOCAL conference proceedings peer review policy ensures that GLOCAL publications attain a high standard. This policy ensures that these publications have an increased objectivity. All manuscripts entered into the conference proceedings are peer reviewed using the following procedures. All peer review is under the management of the Editor in Chief, that is, the EIC.
The Editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is possible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are normally passed on to at least 2 experts for review.
Peer Review Type
The peer review system is always (at least) double blind, placing both referee/reviewer and author as anonymous to each other.
The GLOCAL attempts to match the paper with reviewers who have expertise with the paper under review. We have a large database of reviewers which we draw from for the process.
The criteria for review are as follows:
- Methodological rigor
- Ethical rigor
- Systematicity and logicality in writing
- Appropriate referencing
The duration for the review process is predicated on several factors, such as reviewer feedback, reviewer corrections, author corrections, author submissions, and formatting. AT times, we seek the opinions of other experts and academics in the field as the decision is conflicting or as the reviewer feels that they need more expertise. As such, reviews for the proceedings book usually take up to six months.
Authors will receive notifications of acceptance or rejection in due course, and these will include all comments by authors.
Authors are able to contact the Editor in Chief (EIC) who is responsible for the final decision, should they feel that there has been an unjust decision, and this will be considered, once. After one re-review, the EIC’s decision is final and cannot be changed.