Peer Review Process

JIGC employs a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout evaluation.

Review Process

1. Initial Screening (Editor): Each submission is checked for scope, formatting, and basic methodological quality. A plagiarism check is conducted prior to external review.
2. External Review: Manuscripts that pass screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise and from different institutions than the authors.
3. Reviewer Recommendations: Reviewers recommend one of the following decisions: Accept; Accept with Revisions (minor/major); or Reject.
4. Editorial Decision: The Editor-in-Chief (or delegated editor) makes the final decision based on reviewer reports and the journal’s editorial standards. Additional reviews may be requested when necessary.
5. Author Revisions & Communication: Decisions and reviewer comments are communicated to authors. Revised manuscripts may be re-reviewed to confirm the adequacy of revisions.

Average Timeline

Submission to publication: approximately 8–12 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the speed and quality of author revisions.

Ethics & Transparency

• JIGC adheres to the COPE guidelines.
• Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest and maintain confidentiality.
• Editorial and review decisions are based on scholarly merit and relevance to the journal’s scope.