Editorial and Peer Review Policy

1. Purpose
The Journal of Global Arts Studies (JGAS) is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, rigorous, and ethical editorial and peer review process. This policy sets out the principles and procedures governing editorial decision-making, peer review, reviewer selection, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, appeals, and editorial independence.
The purpose of this policy is to ensure the academic quality, originality, integrity, and international scholarly value of all manuscripts published in JGAS.

2. Editorial Independence
JGAS maintains editorial independence in all publication decisions. Editorial decisions are based solely on the scholarly merit, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, and contribution of the submitted manuscript to the aims and scope of the journal.
Editorial decisions shall not be influenced by the author’s nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, academic rank, political views, religion, ethnicity, race, financial status, personal relationships, or any other irrelevant factor.
The publisher, sponsoring institution, or any external organization shall not interfere with editorial decisions.

3. Editorial Responsibility
The Co-Editors-in-Chief, and the Editor-in-Chief where appointed, have overall responsibility for the academic quality, editorial direction, publication standards, and ethical integrity of JGAS.
The editorial team is responsible for:
a. conducting an initial editorial screening of submitted manuscripts;
b. determining whether manuscripts fit the aims and scope of the journal;
c. selecting qualified and independent reviewers;
d. ensuring a fair and confidential peer review process;
e. making editorial decisions based on reviewer reports and editorial judgment;
f. managing conflicts of interest;
g. handling ethical concerns, complaints, appeals, corrections, and retractions;
h. protecting the integrity and reputation of the journal.
Editors must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents and must not use unpublished materials for personal, academic, financial, or professional advantage.

4. Initial Editorial Screening
All manuscripts submitted to JGAS undergo an initial editorial screening before being sent for peer review, where applicable.
At this stage, the editorial office may check:
a. whether the manuscript fits the aims and scope of JGAS;
b. whether the manuscript follows the journal’s author guidelines;
c. whether the manuscript is complete and properly formatted;
d. whether the manuscript includes required declarations, such as conflict of interest, funding, ethics approval, copyright permission, and AI use disclosure where applicable;
e. whether the manuscript shows signs of plagiarism, duplicate submission, inappropriate authorship, research misconduct, or ethical problems;
f. whether the manuscript meets the basic academic standard required for peer review.
Manuscripts that are clearly outside the scope of the journal, incomplete, insufficiently prepared, or in serious breach of publication ethics may be rejected without external peer review.

5. Peer Review Model
JGAS uses a double-blind peer review process. In principle, the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.
Research Articles, Review Articles, Case Studies, and Special Issue Articles are treated as peer-reviewed scholarly articles; other scholarly materials may be subject to editorial assessment or external peer review depending on their nature, length, academic content, and editorial judgment.
Authors are responsible for removing identifying information from the manuscript file, including author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, self-identifying references, file metadata, and other information that may reveal the authors’ identities.
The editorial office will make reasonable efforts to preserve anonymity during the review process. However, complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed in all cases, particularly when the research topic, citation pattern, data, or prior conference presentation may reveal the author’s identity.

6. Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, publication record, independence, and relevance to the manuscript topic.
JGAS normally seeks reviewers who:
a. have expertise in the subject area of the manuscript;
b. are independent from the authors;
c. have no known conflict of interest;
d. are able to provide a fair, constructive, and timely review;
e. understand the ethical responsibilities of peer review.
Whenever possible, each peer-reviewed scholarly article shall be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. If the reviewer reports are significantly conflicting, the editor may invite an additional reviewer or make a decision based on editorial judgment after careful consideration.

7. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and respectful evaluations.
Reviewers should assess:
a. originality and scholarly contribution;
b. relevance to the aims and scope of JGAS;
c. clarity of research question, argument, and structure;
d. appropriateness of methodology or theoretical framework;
e. quality of analysis and interpretation;
f. use of sources, references, artworks, images, archives, interviews, or cultural materials;
g. ethical soundness of the research;
h. clarity of writing and presentation;
i. overall suitability for publication.
Reviewers should not make personal, discriminatory, hostile, or inappropriate comments. Criticism should be directed at the manuscript, not at the author.
Reviewers must complete their reviews within the requested period or notify the editorial office promptly if they are unable to review.

8. Confidentiality in Peer Review
All submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and related materials are confidential.
Reviewers must not:
a. share the manuscript with others without permission from the editor;
b. discuss the manuscript with unauthorized individuals;
c. use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage;
d. cite, reproduce, or distribute unpublished manuscript content;
e. upload the manuscript or review materials to external AI tools or third-party platforms without explicit permission from JGAS.
Editors and editorial staff must also protect the confidentiality of all manuscript and review materials.

9. Conflict of Interest in Peer Review
Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that may affect their objectivity.
Conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to:
a. recent collaboration with the author;
b. employment at the same institution as the author;
c. personal, academic, financial, or professional relationship with the author;
d. direct academic competition;
e. supervisory or student relationship;
f. involvement in the same research project, grant, exhibition, conference, or publication project;
g. any situation that may compromise impartial judgment.
Reviewers affiliated with the same institution as any author shall normally be excluded from reviewing the manuscript. If an exception is unavoidable due to the specialized nature of the field, the editor must ensure that there is no conflict of interest and that the review process remains fair and independent.
If a conflict of interest exists, the reviewer must decline the review invitation or inform the editor immediately. Editors with conflicts of interest must not handle the manuscript and should assign it to another qualified editor.

10. Editorial Decisions
For manuscripts sent for peer review, the editor will make a decision based on reviewer reports, editorial assessment, journal policy, ethical standards, and the manuscript’s contribution to the field.
Possible editorial decisions include:
a. Accept
b. Minor Revision
c. Major Revision
d. Revise and Resubmit
e. Reject
The final decision rests with the Co-Editors-in-Chief, the Editor-in-Chief where appointed, or the responsible editor designated by the journal. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not automatically determine the final editorial decision.
The editor may reject a manuscript even if reviewers recommend acceptance, if serious ethical, legal, methodological, or editorial concerns are identified.

11. Revision Process
When revision is requested, authors must submit:
a. a revised manuscript;
b. a response letter explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed;
c. a clear indication of changes made in the manuscript, where applicable.
Authors should respond to reviewer comments respectfully and thoroughly. If authors disagree with a comment, they should provide a reasoned explanation.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, reviewed by new reviewers, or assessed by the editor, depending on the extent of revision required.
Failure to submit a revision within the requested timeline may result in withdrawal of the manuscript from consideration unless an extension is granted by the editorial office.

12. Review Timeline
JGAS aims to conduct peer review in a timely manner. However, the review period may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and editorial workload.
The editorial office will make reasonable efforts to inform authors of delays. Authors may contact the editorial office if they have not received an update within the expected review period.

13. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions
Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe that a significant error, misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, or conflict of interest affected the decision.
Appeals must be submitted in writing to the editorial office and should include:
a. manuscript title;
b. decision being appealed;
c. clear reasons for the appeal;
d. specific evidence supporting the appeal;
e. a respectful response to reviewer and editor comments.
Appeals that are based only on disagreement with reviewers’ academic judgment, without evidence of error or procedural concern, may not be considered.
The Co-Editors-in-Chief, the Editor-in-Chief where appointed, or an independent editor not involved in the original decision, will review the appeal The outcome of the appeal may be to uphold the original decision, request further review, invite revision, or take other appropriate action. The appeal decision is final.

14. Complaints
JGAS takes complaints about editorial process, peer review, publication ethics, or published content seriously.
Complaints should be submitted in writing to the editorial office. The complaint should clearly state the issue, provide relevant evidence, and identify the manuscript or published article concerned.
The editorial office will review complaints fairly and confidentially. Where necessary, the journal may consult editors, reviewers, authors, the publisher, ethics committees, or relevant institutions.
Complaints involving research misconduct, plagiarism, authorship disputes, conflicts of interest, or breaches of confidentiality will be handled in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics and Research Integrity Policy.

15. Submissions by Editors, Editorial Board Members, or Journal Staff
Submissions from editors, editorial board members, guest editors, or journal staff will be handled with special care to ensure fairness and avoid conflicts of interest.
Such manuscripts will be assigned to an independent editor who has no conflict of interest with the author. The submitting editor or board member must not be involved in the review process, reviewer selection, editorial discussion, or final decision for their own manuscript.
Where applicable, the manuscript will undergo the same peer review process as other submissions of the same article type.

16. Special Issues and Guest Editors
Special issue submissions are subject to the same editorial standards, peer review procedures, and publication ethics policies as regular submissions.
Guest editors must follow JGAS editorial policies, maintain confidentiality, avoid conflicts of interest, and ensure fair peer review.
The Co-Editors-in-Chief, and the Editor-in-Chief where appointed, retain final responsibility for the academic quality and ethical integrity of all special issue content.

17. Use of AI in Editorial and Peer Review Processes
Editors and reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, review reports, author information, reviewer information, editorial correspondence, or unpublished materials to external AI tools or third-party systems without explicit authorization from JGAS.
AI-assisted tools may not replace human editorial judgment or reviewer expertise. Final editorial decisions must be made by qualified human editors.
If AI tools are used for limited administrative or language-editing support, confidentiality, data protection, fairness, and human responsibility must be maintained.
Reviewers who use AI tools in any way related to the preparation of their review comments must ensure that no confidential manuscript content is disclosed and must personally verify the accuracy and appropriateness of the final review.

18. Ethical Concerns During Review
If editors or reviewers identify possible ethical concerns during the review process, including plagiarism, duplicate submission, fabricated data, falsified evidence, manipulated images, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed AI use, copyright infringement, or lack of required ethical approval, they must inform the editorial office.
The journal may pause the review process while the concern is investigated. Depending on the seriousness of the issue, JGAS may request clarification from the authors, seek additional documentation, reject the manuscript, or take further action in accordance with the journal’s ethics policies.

19. Reviewer Recognition
JGAS values the contribution of peer reviewers to maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publication.
Reviewer identities will remain confidential unless the journal adopts a specific reviewer recognition system or the reviewer has given explicit consent. Any public acknowledgement of reviewers will be made in a way that does not reveal the manuscript reviewed or compromise the confidentiality of the peer review process.

20. Record Keeping
JGAS will maintain appropriate records of manuscript submissions, reviewer assignment records, editorial decisions, review reports, decision letters, revision records, author correspondence, ethical concerns, appeals, and complaints in accordance with journal policy and applicable data protection requirements.
The editorial office shall preserve these records for at least five years, unless a longer period is required by law, journal policy, or an ongoing ethical investigation.
These records will be used only for legitimate editorial, ethical, administrative, and quality assurance purposes.

21. Policy Review
This Editorial and Peer Review Policy will be reviewed periodically to reflect changes in international publishing standards, indexing requirements, research ethics, peer review practices, and journal operations.
Authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff are expected to follow the most recent version of this policy available on the JGAS website.
This policy was last updated on December 1, 2025.