Peer Review Process

1. Overview

Gorga applies a documented double-blind peer review to ensure fairness, confidentiality, and academic rigor. The process described below covers initial checks, plagiarism screening, reviewer selection, review conduct, editorial decision-making, revision cycles, and appeals.

2. Submission & Initial Editorial Check

  1. Administrative check (editorial office). Upon receipt, the submission is checked for completeness (including cover letter, author information, abstract in the required languages, figures/tables, and format) and compliance with the journal's basic policies.

  2. Desk-scope check (handling editor). An assigned editor (Handling Editor or Associate Editor) evaluates fit with the journal’s aims & scope and screens for obvious fatal flaws in study design or ethics. Manuscripts judged clearly out of scope or hopelessly flawed may be desk rejected with a short explanation to the corresponding author.

  3. Plagiarism/similarity screening. Manuscripts that pass the scope check undergo similarity checking (i.e., using a recognized tool). If similarity levels or unattributed overlap raise concerns, the editor will request clarification from the authors and may reject the manuscript pending satisfactory explanation or revision.

Administrative & desk checks are conducted promptly and authors are notified of desk rejections with reasons.

3. Assignment & Reviewer Selection

  1. Handling editor assignment. Manuscripts that pass the initial checks are assigned to a Handling Editor who manages the review process. The Handling Editor is responsible for ensuring no conflict of interest with authors.

  2. Reviewer selection. The Handling Editor selects at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise (academic/research track record, no recent close collaboration with authors). If applicable, one reviewer may be invited from the editorial board, and the others may be external experts. Reviewers are asked to declare conflicts of interest before accepting.

  3. Double-blind procedure. Reviewer and author identities are concealed from each other. Authors must remove identifying information from the manuscript file (except on a separate title page) to preserve anonymity.

4. Review Instructions & Timelines

  1. Review criteria. Reviewers are asked to assess the following: originality, relevance to scope, rigor of methodology, clarity of presentation, validity of data & analysis, ethical compliance, and appropriateness of references.

  2. Constructive reports. Reviews should provide constructive, evidence-based comments for authors and confidential comments for editors if needed. Reviewers should make a clear recommendation: Accept, Minor revision, Major revision, or Reject.

  3. Target timelines. Review invitations typically ask reviewers to respond within 7–10 days to accept/decline and to submit reviews within 2–4 weeks (the journal may publish its standard target times). Editors will send reminders as needed. If reviewers are delayed, the Handling Editor may invite alternative reviewers.

5. Editorial Decision & Revision Cycle

  1. Synthesis by Handling Editor. After receiving reviews, the Handling Editor synthesizes the reports and makes a provisional recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. If reviews conflict, a third reviewer may be invited, or the Editor will adjudicate.

  2. Decision categories. Possible decisions: Accept as is; Minor revision; Major revision; Reject. Decisions are based on reviewers’ reports and editorial judgement.

  3. Revision process. Authors are provided with consolidated reviewer comments and a deadline for resubmission. Authors must include a point-by-point response to each reviewer's comment and upload a revised manuscript with the changes highlighted.

  4. Subsequent review. The Handling Editor usually checks revised manuscripts for minor revisions; major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers (or a new reviewer) for reassessment. The journal typically allows up to two rounds of major revision, after which the manuscript may be rejected if concerns remain unresolved.

  5. Final decision. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief (or an editorial panel) based on reviewer recommendations, Handling Editor synthesis, and editorial board discussion when necessary. The Editor-in-Chief has the final authority; however, decisions must be reasoned and thoroughly documented.

6. Confidentiality, Ethics & Conflicts of Interest

  • Confidentiality: All parties (editors, reviewers, authors) must treat submitted material as confidential. Reviewers must not share or use unpublished data for their own purposes.

  • Conflicts of interest: Editors and reviewers must declare any competing interests and recuse themselves if a conflict exists. Authors must disclose their funding sources and any potential conflicts of interest.

  • Research ethics: Editors will request copies of relevant ethics approvals or informed consent documentation for studies involving humans, animals, or sensitive cultural materials.

7. Misconduct, Corrections & Appeals

  • Allegations of misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication) are investigated per the journal’s Publication Ethics policy; outcomes may include correction, retraction, or notification of institutions.

  • Corrections & retractions follow COPE guidelines and are linked to the original article.

  • Appeals: Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision, providing grounds and supporting evidence. Appeals are reviewed by senior editors not involved in the original decision.

8. Transparency & Recordkeeping

  • The journal publishes an overview of its peer-review model and approximate timelines on the website.

  • Editorial decisions, reviewer reports, and correspondence are retained securely for a defined period to support transparency and audits.

9. Summary flow (compact)

  1. Submission → administrative check → desk scope check → similarity check.

  2. Passed → Handling Editor assignment → invite ≥2 reviewers (double-blind).

  3. Review reports → Handling Editor synthesis → editorial decision (Accept / Minor / Major / Reject).

  4. Revision cycles (if required) → final decision by Editor-in-Chief → production.