Editorial policy

Every submission to GGJ undergoes an initial review for completeness before being forwarded to an Editor for assessment. Peer review is conducted for all research articles, as well as the majority of other article types, that are published in GGJ. Typically, this involves evaluation by a minimum of one independent and experienced peer reviewer.

GGJ strictly prohibits the use of author-recommended reviewers at any stage during the submission process.

The Editor will determine if the submissions are appropriate for peer review. If an Editor is listed on the author list or has any conflicting interest related to a particular submission, another member of the Editorial Board will be designated to supervise the peer review process. The editors will take into account the peer-reviewed reports during the decision-making process, but they are not obligated to follow the opinions or suggestions contained in such reports. If a peer reviewer or the Editor themselves raise a problem, it could lead to the rejection of the manuscript. Authors are provided with peer review reports containing the editorial decision regarding their manuscript.