Peer Review Policy
The Gul-o-Berg Research Journal (English) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the integrity, quality, and originality of all published work. Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process to promote fairness and impartiality.
- Initial Screening
- All submissions are first assessed by the editorial team for relevance, originality, and adherence to the journal’s scope and formatting guidelines.
- Manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements may be returned to authors without external review.
- Double-Blind Review
- Eligible manuscripts are sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.
- Reviewers evaluate submissions based on scholarly merit, methodological rigor, clarity of argument, and contribution to the field of English language and literature.
- Recommendations may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.
- Editorial Decision
- The editorial board makes the final decision based on reviewers’ reports and the overall quality of the manuscript.
- Authors are notified promptly of the decision and, where applicable, provided with constructive feedback to improve their work.
- Revision Process
- Authors invited to revise must address reviewers’ comments systematically and resubmit within the specified timeframe.
- Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers or additional experts if necessary.
- Ethical Oversight
- Reviewers and editors are required to disclose any conflicts of interest.
- Manuscripts suspected of plagiarism, data fabrication, or other ethical breaches will be investigated in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics policy.
- Transparency and Accountability
- The journal is committed to maintaining transparency in the peer review process while safeguarding confidentiality.
- Appeals against editorial decisions may be considered if supported by strong evidence of bias or error.
