Review Process
 

Editorial Processes


This document applies to papers submitted directly to the Journal. It also applies to papers that have been previously presented at a GPPS Forum, Conference or Workshop with or without peer review.
Our typical submission-to-publication workflow is outlined below.


Initial check


Submissions initially undergo a plagiarism check and an in-house editorial check to ensure they are original and meet our requirements for style and language. Submissions that do not fully comply with our author guidelines may be sent back to the authors for amendment or, in extreme cases, may be rejected at this stage. Only after a manuscript has passed this initial check is it 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 Forum, Conference or Workshop 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 Forum, Conference or Workshop 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 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 Forum, Conference or Workshop 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 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 will check the suggested reviewers’ suitability and may invite them at their 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 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.
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. Once the review process is complete, the Editor in Chief will make a final decision to accept or reject the paper.


Production


Accepted manuscripts are passed on to our production department for copyediting, typesetting and publication. Authors receive a copyedited version of their manuscript, which they are required to approve or correct. They may also need to address author queries.  After copyediting is complete, proofs are sent within five to ten working days; authors are requested to submit their corrections within five working days. They also need to supply any missing information such as high-resolution figures or permission to reuse copyrighted material before we can proceed to publication.


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 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.


Policies


Authorship


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.


Acknowledgements


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 organisation, 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 Forum, Conference or Workshop.
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 Editor 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. A commercial use is one 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 sent to editorjournal@gpps.global at any time during the editorial process.


Appeals


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.

 
eISSN:2515-3080