Peer Review Process

General Outlook  

geget Journal operates under a double-blind review process.

The Editor-in-Chief will initially assess all contributions for publishing suitability for geget.

The poor syntax is decidedly a matter of significant concern.

The Editor-In-Chief is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles.

Editor-In-Chief’s decision is final.

(The views of geget Editorial Board members may be sought for further input towards this decision.)

Each Reviewer takes 21 days to review the manuscript, while the whole peer-review process takes 40 to 60 days.


After appraisal of suitability, submitted manuscripts are coded and then anonymously forwarded for the

reviewing process.

Only those manuscripts judged most likely to meet the editorial criteria are sent out for formal review.

At least two reviewers perform the task.

The EIC seeks more reviewers should he deems that, a practical step. e.g., conflicting reports or, if an additional issue arises, (e.g., syntax)

Based on the above criteria, the EIC decides to:

  • Accept the manuscript, with or without minor revision.
  • Invite the authors to revise the paper to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached (involving a third and a fourth reviewer).
  • Reject the manuscript, typically due to lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance, or significant technical or interpretational problems.

The most helpful reviewer reports are those that set out clear, substantiated arguments.

Selecting Reviewers

Reviewer selection is critical to the review process, and the choice is, based on many factors, including:

Volitional and dedicated participation. (time and effort)


Specific recommendations.

The previous familiarity of the Reviewer's expertise to the nature of his opinion.

Standards set by geget Supreme Advisory and Editorial Boards concerning his résumé.

By consensus, editors do not find it necessary to exclude reviewers who have reviewed a paper for another journal. The fact that two journals have independently identified a particular person as a well-qualified reviewer of an article does not decrease the validity of their opinion in our view.

Reviewer Response

To avoid unnecessary delay and upon receiving a manuscript, the esteemed Reviewer is expected to proceed to: spontaneously

  • double-check the deadline and contact the Editorial Office immediately if met with any difficulties.
  • Note possible specific points the EIC may have requested the reviewers’ opinion on it.
  • Consider whether the topic fits the scope of the Journal and is likely to be of sufficient general interest for publication.

Confidentiality and Code of Ethics:

the "Double-Blind Basis." Both the Reviewer and the Author are anonymous in this model.

  1. Manuscripts reviewed for geget Journal are not discussed with anyone not directly involved in the review process.

If colleagues or if experts from outside the Reviewer's workroom are consulted, reviewers should check with the editors beforehand for approval. (such as for imaging, lab, etc.)

Reviewers should not disclose their identities to the authors or other colleagues.

The work on author/reviewer anonymity must be maintained throughout the study.

Corresponding Authors are required to facilitate this task: ensure that their manuscripts are prepared so that they do not reveal their identities to reviewers, either directly or indirectly.

Reviewers are also kindly asked to report such a possible breach. Reviewers should treat the review process as being strictly confidential.

Conflicts of interest and the Code of Ethics:

At geget, we strongly disapprove of any attempt by the authors to determine reviewers' identities or to confront them; and encourage reviewers to neither confirm nor deny any speculation in this regard.

Refusal of publishing of the concerned manuscript would be the definitive sequel to such dishonorable breach.

On the other hand, it is quite convenient to avoid using reviewers who:

have had recent or ongoing collaborations with the authors.

have commented on drafts of the manuscript.

are in direct competition.

have a history of disputes with the authors.

have a financial interest in the outcome.

Because it is impossible for the Editors to know of all potential biases, we ask reviewers to draw our attention to anything that might affect their report. Such include commercial interests.

Noteworthy Within the context and to ensure fairness in the reviewer process, and as the consensus implies, we try to avoid reviewers who are chronically slow, sloppy, too harsh or else, too lenient

Comments for transmission to the authors

Reviewers are asked to maintain a positive and impartial yet critical attitude in evaluating manuscripts. The reviewers would decline in cases where they feel unable to remain objective.

Criticisms should remain dispassionate. Offensive language is not acceptable.

On the other hand, we also expect authors to recognize that criticisms are not necessarily unfair.

As far as possible, a negative report should explain to the authors the weaknesses of their manuscript to understand the basis for a decision to ask for revision or reject the manuscript.


geget is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication since the efficiency in this process is a valuable service both to our authors and the scientific community as a whole.

Hence the necessity for prompt reviewer response.

Writing the report

The primary purpose of the reviewer report is to provide the editors with the information that they need to reach a decision. Still, they should also instruct the authors on how to strengthen their manuscript-including the language of the dissertation.

Editing reviewer reports (please also check reviewers’ final checklist)

As a matter of policy, editors do not suppress reviewer reports.

Almost always, any comments intended for the authors are transmitted.

On rare occasions, however, and where the Reviewer has made an apparent factual mistake or used offensive language or comments that reveal confidential information, editors interfere.

The ideal report should include:

A closing paragraph that summarizes the significant findings and the Reviewer's overall impressions and highlights substantial shortcomings of the manuscript.

Specific numbered comments, which may be broken down into major and minor criticisms appropriate.

(The numbering facilitates both the editor’s evaluation of the paper as well as the author rebuttal to the report)

The “report” should answer the following questions: (Excerpts)

what are the major claims, and how significant are they?

are the claims novel and convincing?

are the applications appropriately discussed in the context of earlier literature?

who will be interested, and why?

does the paper stand out in some way from the others in its field?

are there other experiments that would strengthen the writing?

For manuscripts that may merit further consideration pending acceptance:

It would also be helpful, should reviewers provide advice on the following points where appropriate (in the remarks section of their checklist):

how the clarity of the writing might be improved.

how the manuscript might be shortened.

how to do the study justice without overselling the claims.

how to represent earlier literature more fairly.

how to improve the presentation of methodological detail so that the experiments can be reproduced.

Besides objective scientific appraisal, such report should not include any recommendation regarding publication, which is considered “disclosing confidential information” since the final decision regarding acceptance, revision or rejection rests with the editors.

One can assure those illustrious reviewers undoubtedly enrich the scientific and publication processes from all of the above.

The ‘Reviewer Checklist’

This is quite a valuable tool for all parties. We kindly call on reviewers to, please, use it