Journal of Global Trade, Ethics and Law
01
Double-anonymous review
JGTEL uses double-anonymous peer review: authors and reviewers do not know one another's identities during the review process.
The Editor-in-Chief, sometimes supported by a deputy or handling editor, first evaluates whether a manuscript fits the journal and is ready for full external assessment.
A manuscript may be returned without external review where it is outside scope, incomplete, insufficiently original or unable to meet the journal's threshold for scholarly and ethical quality.
02
Review stages and target timings
- 01
Initial assessment
Target: 5 working days
The Editor-in-Chief assesses fit, completeness and whether a full review is warranted. A desk decision includes reasons where the submission cannot proceed.
- 02
Reviewer assignment
Target: 2 working days
Two external reviewers with relevant expertise are invited and the editorial office monitors responses and conflicts.
- 03
External review
Target: 28 working days
Reviewers examine originality, methods, evidence, reasoning, presentation, ethical issues and relevance, then provide a recommendation and constructive report.
- 04
Editorial decision
Target: 7 working days
The Editor-in-Chief weighs the reports, the manuscript and any ethical or procedural issues before reaching the final decision for that round.
- 05
Author notification
Target: 3 working days
Authors receive the decision, anonymised reviewer comments and clear instructions for any revision.
03
Reviewer recommendations and rating scale
Reviewers may recommend acceptance, acceptance after revision or rejection. The journal's legacy process also describes the following quantitative guide; the Editor does not treat a numerical score as a substitute for scholarly judgement.
| Score | Indicative recommendation |
|---|---|
| 76–100% | Accept; minor corrections may be requested |
| 51–75% | Accept subject to revision |
| 0–50% | Reject |
04
Files for double-anonymous review
Title page
Upload a separate title page containing the manuscript title, author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, declarations of interest and the corresponding author's email address. An optional personal or institutional social-media handle may be added.
Anonymised manuscript
The review file must exclude names, affiliations and other direct identifiers. Authors should also remove identifying document properties and revise self-references that would reveal identity without compromising the scholarly record.
05
Review-ready manuscript preparation
- Use the native format of the word processor, normally Microsoft Word.
- Use a single-column layout and avoid decorative formatting, justification and automatic hyphenation.
- Use bold, italics, subscripts and superscripts only where they support meaning.
- Build tables with a single editable grid; use tabs rather than spaces for unruled tabular alignment.
- Supply editable source files for figures, tables and supplementary materials where possible.
- Use spelling and grammar tools, then complete a careful human proofread.
06
Confidentiality, conflicts and editorial responsibility
Reviewers must keep manuscripts and reports confidential, decline work they cannot complete promptly, and disclose personal, professional, financial or intellectual conflicts that could affect impartiality.
Reviewer identities remain protected in the normal course of double-anonymous review. Reports should be specific, evidence-based, courteous and directed at improving or evaluating the work rather than the authors.
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision. Divergent reports may lead to an additional review or further editorial assessment.