Peer Review Process
Article Processing Charges
Author Instruction
Complaints Policy
Conflict of Interest
Content Licensing
Copyright and Permissions
Copyright Information
Editorial Policies
Open Access Statement
Peer Review Process
Plagiarism Process
Publication Ethics Policy
Research Ethics Policy


Peer Review Process

GI Publisher adheres to a double-blind peer review procedure. The editor is not privy to the author's identity, and the editor is not privy to the author's identity. The double blind peer review process ensures the standard of quality requires for the article before acceptance for publication in GI Pub Journals. Peer review is an integral part of scientific publishing that confirms the validity of the science reported. Peer reviewers are experts who volunteer their time to help improve the journal manuscripts they review-they offer authors free advice.


Authors are invited to submit their manuscript according to author instructions for a faster review process. Usually, it takes 10-12 days for review process depending on the length, data, references, clarity of work, research methodology used in the manuscript.


The final decision is taken by the editorial team by considering all comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers.


Peer review mode

GI Publisher uses double-blind peer review, which means:

  • Reviewer’s name is NOT disclosed to the author
  • Author’s name is NOT disclosed to the reviewer


Review Criteria

The following criteria are used to evaluate manuscripts:

The material is original and relevant

The manuscript follows the guidelines for authors and is written with clarity

The study methods used have been appropriate

The data is accurate.

The conclusions are reasonable and well supported by the data


Transparent peer review

GI Publisher is committed to providing a transparent peer review method as an option for all manuscripts as part of our commitment to openness and accountability and to raise the level of transparency throughout our peer review process.


The role of reviewers

To provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript we ask reviewers the following questions:

  • Is the abstract able to convey the main idea of the paper?
  • Is the rationale for the study explained in the introduction using the literature that is available?
  • Is the article able to evaluate an existing problem in a comprehensive and critical manner with the available literature?
  • Has the relevant ethics approval and informed consent been obtained?
  • Are the methods adequately described?
  • Is there a clear mention of the number of samples, number of repeats, equipment, and chemicals used?
  • Are statistical methods clearly stated?
  • Is the discussion well-balanced in light of the available literature and the research findings?
  • Have any conflicts of interest been disclosed?
  • Proper documentation of experiments involving patient or animal data is necessary. GI Pub journals require ethical approval from the author's host organization.
  • Is the manuscript in need of language editing?


Guidelines for Reviewers

GI Publisher aims to make as much research accessible as possible to benefit both authors and the wider research community, as long as it meets our journal's strict guidelines for ethical conduct and research practices and is accepted after peer review.


  • When submitting a review through our submission system, munificently disclose any potential conflicts of interest you may have with reverence to the content. These might pertain to your personal life, vocation, or finances.


  • You might find it useful to check our author guidelines prior to writing your review. Reviews should be conducted in a fair and impartial manner. The author should aim to improve their work by giving objective criticism, not just based on personal preferences. When preparing a paper for our publication, writers must follow the reporting standards and submit a completed checklist for each one. We recommend using this completed checklist from the review activity to help you with your review. Please make sure the report contains the bare minimum of data required by the checklist before using the reporting guidelines to help you evaluate the article. As part of your review comments, you could also specify what further information needs to be submitted if you discover that the checklist has been erroneously completed or that the manuscript does not truly contain the information required by the checklist. A reporting guideline offers suggestions for the kind of questions that should be taken into account when designing a study, but it cannot be used to evaluate the quality of the technique employed in the study.


  • Unpublished writings are considered private information. Only the editorial team and peer reviewers should have knowledge of the paper's evaluation. Peer reviewers are expected to keep all information about the papers they read confidential, and they are not allowed to discuss a particular manuscript or its contents with anyone else without the editors of the journal's prior approval.


  • If you accept our invitation to evaluate an article and decide to discuss the manuscript with a colleague, kindly remind them that the review is confidential and credit them for their contributions. Please urge your coworkers to sign up as reviewers as well.

You can speak with the Editorial Office in confidentiality if you have any significant questions about the publication ethics of a manuscript (for example, if you think you have found evidence of plagiarism).


Benefits for Reviewers

We value the hard work and dedication of our reviewers. Therefore, for good reviewers, we are pleased to offer you the following benefits:

  • Personalized reviewer certificate.
  • A good concession in the Article Processing Charge (APC) of your future submission to the journal.
  • Raising your profile and broadening your exposure to significant figures in the field.
  • Keeping up with the latest literature and accessing research results.
  • An advance in your career—reviewer is an essential role for every researcher.


Notifying the journal editor of any ethical problems they encounter while reviewing submitted articles, such as any unethical treatment of animal or human subjects or any striking similarities between a manuscript under review and one that has already been published.


The Editorial Office is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript, based on the reviewers' comments.


The opinions of our reviewers mean a lot to us. We would be happy to hear from you if you have any thoughts you would like to share regarding a manuscript you have reviewed or our decision regarding it.


Recognition for reviewers

As a token of our gratitude for their assistance in enabling us to publish high-quality articles, we regularly award the best reviewer of each month and congratulate them on their accomplishments.


To become a reviewer

If you're interested in reviewing for our journal, send an email to the editorial office at with a copy of your resume attached and a list of the kind of articles you're interested in reviewing.


We are very grateful to all of the reviewers who have supported our journal so far.