Quality Assurance

Peer Review Model.

GTS Press employs a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review model in strict accordance with COPE guidelines, ensuring an unbiased, merit-driven evaluation of every manuscript.

Stage 1: Screening Stage 2: Assignment Stage 3: Review Stage 4: Revision Stage 5: Decision

5-Stage Editorial Workflow

A transparent, end-to-end process to ensure every manuscript is evaluated with the utmost rigour and fairness.

Initial Screening & Technical Audit

1–2 Weeks

The manuscript undergoes a rigorous preliminary evaluation by the editorial office to ensure alignment with the journal's thematic scope and technical standards. This includes a comprehensive plagiarism audit where a similarity threshold of less than 10% is strictly enforced.

Expert Reviewer Assignment

1–2 Weeks

Once a manuscript clears the initial audit, it is passed to an Associate Editor who identifies and invites a minimum of two independent subject matter experts. Our protocol ensures reviewers have high expertise relevance and no conflicts of interest.

Double-Blind Peer Review

6–8 Weeks

During this critical phase, reviewers conduct an in-depth technical evaluation of the research. They validate the experimental methodology, audit data consistency, and assess the novelty of the findings against existing literature while maintaining strict anonymity.

Author Revision & Rebuttal Cycle

2–3 Weeks

Authors receive a consolidated report containing technical critiques and revision requests. They must then prepare a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point rebuttal letter addressing every comment raised by the reviewers.

Final Decision & Publication

8–10 Weeks

The Editor-in-Chief performs a final audit of the revised manuscript and reviewer recommendations to make a definitive decision. Upon acceptance, the manuscript undergoes copyediting, typesetting, and formatting before being published online.

Process FAQs

Common questions about the GTS Press peer review process.

We employ a strict Double-Blind protocol: neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identities throughout the entire review process.

The Associate Editor consolidates the reviewer responses and the author rebuttal, then makes a recommendation to the EIC. The EIC makes the final binding decision within 3-7 business days.

Yes. Authors may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 14 days of the rejection decision. Appeals must include a detailed rebuttal addressing all reviewer comments.