Peer Review Policy 

Global Perspectives on People, Power, and History (GPPPH) adheres to internationally recognized standards of scholarly publishing to ensure transparency, academic rigor, and ethical integrity. The journal follows the APA Manual (7th Edition) for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work and aligns its practices with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, jointly issued by COPE, DOAJ, WAME, and OASPA.

To maintain the highest academic standards, all submissions to GPPPH undergo a structured and multi-stage editorial and peer-review process. This process ensures that only original, high-quality, and methodologically sound research is published.

Initial Editorial Screening

Once a manuscript is submitted, it first undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team. This stage serves as a quality control mechanism to determine whether the submission meets the journal’s fundamental requirements before being sent for external review. During this phase, the editors assess whether the manuscript:

• Falls within the aims and scope of GPPPH and is relevant to its readership
• Demonstrates sufficient scholarly quality and originality
• Meets acceptable standards of academic writing and clarity
• Complies with the journal’s author guidelines, ethical requirements, and declaration statements

If minor issues are identified at this stage, authors may be asked to revise their manuscript before it proceeds further. Manuscripts that substantially fail to meet editorial standards or fall outside the journal’s scope may be rejected without external peer review. Only submissions that successfully pass the initial screening are advanced to the peer-review stage.

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

GPPPH employs a double-blind peer review system, under which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous. This approach ensures impartial evaluation based solely on scholarly merit. Each eligible manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts selected for their subject expertise and methodological competence.

Reviewers are tasked with evaluating the manuscript’s originality, theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, analytical depth, and relevance to existing scholarship. Their detailed reports form the basis of the editorial decision and provide constructive guidance for authors.

Editorial Decision-Making

Based on reviewer recommendations and editorial assessment, the Editor-in-Chief may decide to:

• Accept the manuscript
• Request minor or major revisions
• Seek additional external review
• Reject the manuscript

In cases where revisions are required, authors are normally given 30 days to submit a revised manuscript. Revised submissions may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed directly by the editorial team, depending on the nature of the revisions.

The final decision regarding publication rests solely with the Editorial Board, ensuring consistency, fairness, and academic accountability.

Appeals Process

Authors who believe that a decision has been affected by a factual error, bias, or undisclosed conflict of interest may submit a formal appeal to the handling editor. Appeals must be clearly justified and supported with evidence. Each appeal is reviewed by multiple editors, and decisions are made collectively based on majority agreement. While under appeal, the manuscript must not be submitted to another journal. GPPPH does not entertain multiple or repetitive appeals.