Editorial Processes

Paper sources

The GPPS Journal receives papers from two channels. Firstly those highly rated (10-20%) papers recommended from one of the GPPS technical conference events; secondly, research papers submitted independently of a GPPS event. In both cases, these papers undergo an extensive review process aimed at maintaining the high standards of the GPPS Journal.
Our typical submission-to-publication workflow is outlined below.

Initial manuscript submission

Authors are asked to submit a PDF file of their paper in the GPPS Journal submission system. For a direct submission, please prepare the manuscript using the GPPS Journal MS Word or LaTex manuscript templates. For a paper recommended for the journal publication from a GPPS technical conference, the initial submission can be made simply with the PDF file of the original conference paper (or an updated version in the conference paper template with all changes marked up in color).

Initial check

All submissions initially undergo a plagiarism check to ensure they are original. After this initial check, the manuscript is passed on to the Editor-in-Chief.

Peer review

A minimum of three reviewers evaluate original research and review articles. For other article types, the number of reviewers assigned is at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers are requested to complete their review within 4 weeks of accepting the invitation. The editorial criteria used for the reviews can be found below.

Manuscripts that have been conference peer reviewed

Papers that have been provisionally accepted for publication by the Editor-in-Chief following presentation at a GPPS technical conference will then be accepted for publication. In rare cases, minor modifications may be requested by the Editor-in-Chief prior to acceptance.

Authors of papers that have been presented at a peer-reviewed GPPS technical conference and which have not been provisionally accepted for publication must submit a revised manuscript as defined in these guidelines, a marked-up copy of the manuscript showing the changes that have been made in response to the reviewer’s comments and a detailed rebuttal of those comments. The Editor-in-Chief may then choose to accept the paper, request additional minor modifications, reject the paper, or request an Associate Editor to examine the case in more detail.

In the latter case, the Associate Editor may make a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief or request additional reviews or revisions prior to making a recommendation at his/her discretion. The Editor-in-Chief will make a final decision to accept or reject the paper.

If the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor requests a revised manuscript, it should be submitted within six weeks. The revised manuscript should be accompanied by a point-by-point response to the peer review comments and a marked-up copy of the manuscript showing the changes made.

Manuscripts that require peer review

For papers submitted directly to the Journal and for papers that have been previously presented at a GPPS technical conference but which have not been peer-reviewed, the Editor-in-Chief will assign an Associate Editor providing that the manuscript is appropriate for the Journal and is of a suitable standard.

The Associate Editor is responsible for inviting reviewers (the Editor-in-Chief may also invite reviewers when appropriate). The Associate Editor and the Editor-in-Chief are required to declare any competing interest that may influence their evaluation of the manuscript and, where appropriate, recuse themselves. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their expertise and the absence of competing interests with the authors or the manuscript. The authors may suggest reviewers for their articles during submission. They should ensure the suggested reviewers have no conflict of interest. The Editor-in-Chief will check the suggested reviewers’ suitability and may invite them at his discretion.

Upon receiving all the required reviews, the Associate Editor makes one of the following initial recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief: accept, request minor or major revisions, or reject. The Associate Editor will notify the authors in cases where revisions are requested.

If revisions are requested, every effort will be made to help authors to understand and address the reviewers’ and editor’s comments. In particular, authors can contact the Associate Editor or the Editor-in-Chief during revision if they need some points to be clarified or want to check they are going in the right direction.

The authors are requested to submit their revised manuscript within six weeks of receiving the initial decision letter. The revision should include a point-by-point response to the peer review comments together with a marked-up copy of the manuscript showing the changes made.

Revised manuscripts are evaluated by the Associate Editor, with or without the reviewers’ assistance, at his/her discretion. The manuscript may be accepted or rejected at this stage, or further revisions may be requested.

Initial paper acceptance

Once the review process is completed, the Editor-in-Chief will make the decision to reject or accept the paper initially. If the paper is initially accepted, authors have to upload all the supporting files (high-resolution figures, tables, employer licenses (if needed), permission to reuse copyrighted material), and the final version of their manuscript both in Word or LaTex AND as a PDF file.

Final paper acceptance

All submitted files undergo an in-house editorial check to ensure they meet our requirements for format, style, and language. Submissions that do not fully comply with our author guidelines may be sent back to the authors for amendment. Once requested files are complete and comply with our editorial requirements, the Editor-in-Chief will make the decision on the final acceptance and notify the corresponding author accordingly.


Accepted manuscripts are passed on to our production department for copyediting, typesetting and publication. Authors will receive a copyedited version of their paper, which they are required to approve or correct. They may also need to address author queries if any. After the copyediting is complete, proofs are sent out within five to ten working days. Authors are requested to submit their corrections within five working days.

Manuscript status

Authors can track their manuscript in their author centre on our online platform at http://www.editorialsystem.com/JGPPS/. The corresponding author will be notified by email when initial checks and decision have been made.

Editorial criteria

GPPS welcomes all valid and robust scholarly articles. Our review process is designed to ensure that submissions are technically and ethically sound.

Purpose of the review

The purpose of the review is to determine whether the paper is acceptable for publication, needs revision, or should be rejected.

As a reviewer evaluates a paper’s originality, significance, relevance, narrative and correctness, we ask our reviewers and editors to use the following evaluation criteria:

  • What is the subject of the paper?
  • Is the reviewer able to perform the review without a potential conflict of interest?
  • Has the reviewer published in the same technical area or has he/she sufficient knowledge of this technical area for him/her to be considered an expert by other peers?

In terms of the narrative and correctness:

  • What is the purpose of the paper?
  • Is the presentation satisfactory?
  • Is it well organised?
  • Is the paper of an appropriate length?
  • Is it clear?
  • Is there an appropriate introduction?
  • Is the selection of material appropriate?
  • Is there validation of any theory or CFD?
  • Is the experimental accuracy assessed?
  • Is the method of approach valid?
  • Is it technically correct?
  • Are the figures and tables appropriate?
  • Are the figures and tables clear?
  • Are there too many figures or tables?
  • Is there sufficient analysis and interpretation of each figure?
  • Are the conclusions drawn from the results?
  • Are the references appropriate?
  • Is the use of English satisfactory?

In terms of the originality, significance and relevance:

  • Are there any conclusions or is there just a summary?
  • What are the main conclusions and recommendations?
  • Is the contribution original?
  • Does the work advance the “state of the art” sufficiently?
  • Are the conclusions and recommendations tangible and useful to the community?
  • Has more than a small amount, say, 20%, of the paper been published before in a similar format?
  • Is the subject of the paper appropriate for the journal?
  • Is it archival?

Above all else:

  • is the paper interesting to the reader of the journal?

Content of the review

The provision of written comments is the key to the review, whether the manuscript is recommended for publication or not. A good review must provide:

  • a summary of the important points of the paper in one to five sentences to indicate that the reviewer actually understands the paper
  • a statement of the significance, relevance and originality of the research
  • an evaluation of the methodology, accuracy and suitability of the work
  • an evaluation of the quality of the presentation
  • an overall recommendation for or against publication
  • detailed reasons for the recommendation, whether it is favourable or not
  • clear statements of both necessary and suggested changes required before publication

Language and presentation

Manuscripts must be written in English, clearly intelligible and well presented. As far as possible, the structure of articles should follow accepted standards. The introduction must provide sufficient background. All relevant results should be included. Figures and tables must be properly labelled and of sufficient quality. References should be relevant and up to date.

What constitutes a journal paper?

A journal paper

  • is interesting
  • is original, making a unique, imaginative or innovative contribution to the field
  • contains a clear narrative from the introduction, through the work carried out to a clear expression of substantial conclusions and recommendations
  • is of sufficient significance and relevance to the community that it will be referred to by other workers in the field

All of the above are required, whether the paper contains new work or is presenting previously published work in a new light.

What are the appropriate standards for a journal paper?

The standard of a journal paper is not absolute. In effect, it is established by the average of the papers that you find worth reading or published in the journal. Using this standard, the reviewer should be able to put the paper into one of the following categories:

  1. Major results, very significant contribution (top 1%) - publish
  2. Good, solid, interesting work; a definite contribution (next 10%) – publish
  3. Minor, but positive, contribution to knowledge (next 10-20%) – publish with discretion
  4. Elegant and technically correct but useless – do not publish
  5. Neither elegant nor useful, but not actually wrong – do not publish
  6. Wrong or misleading – do not publish
  7. So badly written that technical evaluation is impossible – do not publish.

Ethics and best practice

In addition, reviewers will ensure that manuscripts comply with accepted standards with regards to experimental ethics, research integrity, and data and material sharing. See our Policies section for further details.



GPPS expects authors to use the ICMJE’s criteria for authorship. All authors should meet these requirements, and all contributors who meet these requirements should be listed as authors. The criteria are:

  • Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
  • Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
  • Final approval of the version to be published; AND
  • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Contributors who do not meet all four criteria for authorship should be mentioned in the acknowledgements.

Submitting author responsibilities

The submitting author is the publisher's primary contact before and after publication. He/she is responsible for liaising with the co-authors, for ensuring they meet the above authorship criteria and for submitting their details, declarations of interest, funding sources etc. accurately.

The submitting author is also responsible for making choices throughout the publication process on behalf of all of the authors, e.g. the review mode, and for communicating these choices to all of the authors. The submitting author will also agree to our publishing agreement on behalf of all of the authors.

Redundant publications

GPPS will not consider studies that have already been published in peer-reviewed literature or that are under consideration for publication elsewhere.   We welcome the submission of manuscripts available on preprint repositories and of papers presented at conferences.

Research integrity and publishing ethics

GPPS adheres to the COPE recommendations and upholds the highest standards in publication ethics and research integrity. We do not tolerate data or figure manipulation, plagiarism, redundant publication, inaccurate or incomplete declarations of interest, or other irregularities. We will deal with allegations of misconduct in accordance with COPE’s guidelines, and issue corrections or retractions of articles as necessary. For further details see Wager E. & Kleinert S. (2011). Responsible research publication: international standards for authors, in: Mayer T. & Steneck N. (eds) Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing, Singapore (pp 309-16).

Data and material sharing

In order to promote the transparency and reproducibility of research, GPPS requests that, where applicable, authors make the data, method or materials underlying their paper available to readers in accordance with best practice in their discipline (e.g. through deposition in public repositories). Research data is commonly defined as “data that is collected, observed or created, for purposes of analysis to produce original research results.” Relevant DOI, accession, or reference numbers should be provided in the manuscript. When no suitable repository is available, authors can upload supporting material to our platform. See our policies page for details.

Declaration of competing interest

Authors must disclose any potential conflict of interest as part of the submission. A conflict of interest, or competing interest is anything that may, or may be perceived to, influence the authors’ work. Conflicts of interest typically stem from financial, personal, or professional relationships, but may have other sources as well. The declaration of interest is published with each article.

Editors and reviewers are also required to declare any competing interest that may influence their evaluation of the manuscript and, where appropriate, recuse themselves.


The Acknowledgements will appear in a separate section at the end of the article prior to the declaration of interest and references. All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the acknowledgements section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, writing assistance, or a department chair who provided only general support.

Disclosure of funding sources

All sources of funding for the research submitted should be acknowledged separately from the declaration of interest and acknowledgement sections. The funding statement should contain, when applicable, the funding organization, grant number, and recipients, and will be included in the published article.

Single-blind review

GPPS operates a single-blind review: reviewers are anonymous to the authors at all times. Reviewers should ensure that no identifying information, such as names, institution, etc. is present in their reviews (including the file metadata).

Open Access

Articles are published under the Open Access model. Published articles are free to download, reuse and adapt under an appropriate Creative Commons licence (see below).

Article processing charge

GPPS makes no charge for the processing of papers that have already been peer-reviewed and presented at a GPPS technical conference. For papers that have not been presented in this way, GPPS charges authors (or their institution or funding organisation) a fee (see here for current fees) for the processing of such papers. An invoice will be issued by GPPS only after the paper has been accepted by the Edito- in-Chief for publication. Payment is a condition of publication.

Copyright and publishing licences

If the copyright belongs to the authors, the article, if editorially accepted for publication, shall be published by GPPS and shall be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. However, if the authors wish to prevent commercial use then they may use the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial license 4.0. Commercial use is primarily intended for commercial advantage or monetary compensation.

If the copyright belongs to the employer of one or more authors, in addition the submitting author will obtain the agreement of the said employer, by way of a signed copy of the employer licence agreement, to license the article, if accepted for publication, under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 or Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial license 4.0.

If the law requires that the article be published in the public domain, the submitting author will notify GPPS at the time of submission and the article shall be published by GPPS, if accepted, under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication waiver.

Third-party material

Authors who reproduce non-original material in their manuscript should ensure it is appropriately attributed to the original authors and sources. The rights holder may have specific instructions on how to credit the source. If that material is under copyright, it can only be reproduced with the permission of the rights holder. Authors are responsible for obtaining such permissions and will be required to provide them to us before publication.  

When requesting permission to reuse content, such as figures, tables, text etc., the authors should make sure they clearly stipulate the intended use for that content. See our policies page or contact our editorial office for further guidance.

In general, the rights holder is either the author or the publisher. Many publishers process permissions through Copyright Clearance Center (CCC). Locate the source content you’d like to reuse on their website or on the publisher’s website and follow the steps to request permission. If the content you want to use is not available through CCC, you should send a request by email to the rights holder. Permissions can be uploaded under the submission system at any time during the editorial process.


Authors who deem that an unfair and inappropriate decision has been made on their manuscript can appeal to the publisher by contacting the Editor in Chief. The Editor-in-Chief may, at his/her discretion, appoint a new Associate Editor and/or reviewers to adjudicate.