PEER REVIEW POLICY

Global Frontier: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Politics is committed to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and scholarly rigour. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are subject to a structured peer review process designed to ensure originality, methodological soundness, and meaningful contribution to the field.

PEER REVIEW POLICY

Global Frontier: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Politics is committed to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and scholarly rigour. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are subject to a structured peer review process designed to ensure originality, methodological soundness, and meaningful contribution to the field.

1.  Initial Editorial Screening

Upon receipt, every submission undergoes an initial screening by the Editorial Office. This assessment evaluates:

• Alignment with the journal’s scope and aims
• Compliance with submission and formatting guidelines
• Basic standards of academic quality and scholarly writing

Manuscripts that do not satisfy these requirements will be returned to the author with an explanatory note, without proceeding to external review. The initial screening is typically completed within one to two weeks of submission.

2.  Double-Blind Peer Review

Global Frontier operates a double-blind peer review system. The identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process. Authors are required to ensure that no identifying information appears within the submitted manuscript or its associated files.

Each manuscript is assigned to a minimum of two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief and Section Editors. No reviewer may be affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors, nor may they have recently co-authored work with the submitting authors.

3.  Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts against the following criteria:

• Originality and significance of the research contribution
• Clarity, coherence, and quality of argumentation
• Soundness of theoretical framework and methodology
• Relevance to the journal’s interdisciplinary scope
• Accuracy and appropriateness of cited sources
• Presentation, language, and academic style

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, evidence-based feedback to assist authors in improving their work.

4.  Review Timeline

The journal aims to maintain an efficient review process without compromising the quality of evaluation. The indicative timelines are as follows:

• Initial screening: within 1–2 weeks of submission
• Peer review: 3–6 weeks from assignment to reviewers
• Editorial decision: communicated to authors upon completion of review

The average time from submission to first decision is approximately 8–10 weeks. Authors are notified promptly if delays arise. Manuscripts in the humanities and social sciences may require additional review time given the nature of the analysis involved.

5.  Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewer reports, the Editor-in-Chief will communicate one of the following decisions:

• Accept — The manuscript is accepted for publication in its current form.
• Minor Revision — The manuscript is acceptable subject to minor revisions as specified. The revised version will be reviewed by the Editor.
• Major Revision — The manuscript requires substantial revision and will be sent for a further round of review upon resubmission.
• Reject — The manuscript is not suitable for publication in this journal. Authors will receive written feedback where possible.

All decisions are final and are communicated to authors in writing. Reviewer comments are shared with the author in anonymised form.

6.  Revision and Resubmission

Authors invited to revise their manuscript should submit a revised version accompanied by a detailed point-by-point response to each reviewer comment. Where revisions have not been incorporated, authors should provide a clear justification.

Revised manuscripts are typically returned to the original reviewers. If reviewers are unavailable, the Editor-in-Chief may appoint alternative reviewers. Failure to address reviewer comments adequately may result in rejection of the revised submission.

7.  Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to adhere to the following standards throughout the review process:

• Accept review assignments only for manuscripts within their area of expertise.
• Maintain strict confidentiality; manuscripts must not be shared, cited, or disclosed.
• Provide objective, impartial, and constructive evaluations free from personal bias.
• Disclose any conflicts of interest to the Editorial Office at the earliest opportunity.
• Notify the editorial team immediately if they are unable to meet the agreed review deadline.
• Refrain from using unpublished material for personal or professional advantage.

Any breach of reviewer responsibilities may result in removal from the journal’s reviewer panel and may be reported to the reviewer’s institution where appropriate.

8.  Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must declare all potential conflicts of interest prior to undertaking a review. A conflict of interest may arise from personal, professional, financial, or institutional relationships with the authors or their institutions. Reviewers who identify such conflicts are required to recuse themselves and inform the Editorial Office promptly.

9.  Ethical Standards and Misconduct

Global Frontier is committed to the highest standards of publication ethics, in line with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Any concerns relating to plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication, or other forms of academic misconduct identified during the review process must be reported to the Editor-in-Chief immediately.

Reviewers, editors, and authors are all expected to act with integrity, professionalism, and respect throughout the publication process.

Queries regarding the peer review process may be directed to the Editorial Office.