Review Policy

Cybernerves  is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic rigor and integrity through a robust peer review process. This ensures that the published articles in GJCIA meet the journal’s quality standards, contribute to the academic field, and provide value to the research community. This policy outlines the peer review process and expectations for all parties involved.

1. Peer Review Model

Cybernerves employs a Double-Blind Peer Review process. In this model:

• Reviewers: Do not know the identities of the authors, and the authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.
• Impartiality: This ensures impartiality, fairness, and an unbiased assessment of the submitted work.

2. Manuscript Submission and Initial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to GJCIA undergo a rigorous initial screening process:

1. Initial Submission: Manuscripts must be submitted via the journal’s online submission system.
2. Initial Editorial Review: All manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team to ensure they fit the journal’s scope and meet basic quality standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected before peer review.
3. Plagiarism Check: Manuscripts will be checked for plagiarism using a recognized tool (e.g., Turnitin, iThenticate). Manuscripts with significant overlap with previously published work may be rejected at this stage.

3. Peer Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial review will be sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field:

• Reviewer Selection: Reviewers are selected based on their knowledge of the manuscript’s subject area and their availability to complete the review in a timely manner.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play a crucial role in ensuring the quality and validity of the research published in GJCIA. Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide Constructive Feedback: Reviewers should offer clear, detailed, and constructive feedback to help authors improve the manuscript. Criticism should be objective and focused on content rather than authors.
• Assess Originality and Contribution: Reviewers should evaluate the novelty of the research, its relevance to the journal’s scope, and its contribution to the field.
• Evaluate Methodology: Reviewers should check if the research methodology is appropriate, rigorous, and well-executed.
• Recommend Actions: Reviewers will recommend one of the following actions:
  
  • Accept
  • Minor Revisions
  • Major Revisions
  • Reject
• Maintain Confidentiality: Reviewers must keep the manuscript content confidential and not share it with others or use it in their own research.

5. Decision Process

After receiving feedback from the reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors will make the final decision:

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted as is or with minor revisions.
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor revisions before it can be accepted.
• Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant changes before it can be reconsidered.
• Reject: The manuscript is deemed unsuitable for publication.

Authors will be informed of the decision via email, along with the reviewers’ comments, whether the manuscript is accepted, requires revisions, or is rejected.

6. Revision Process

Depending on the reviewers’ recommendations, the revision process may vary:

• Minor Revisions: Authors will have 2-4 weeks to make minor changes to the manuscript.
• Major Revisions: Authors will have up to 8 weeks to address reviewers’ comments. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers for further evaluation.
• Resubmission: Revised manuscripts may undergo another round of peer review before a final decision.

7. Appeals Process

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. If the rejection is believed to be based on unfair or biased feedback, authors may:

• Submit a Letter of Appeal: Send a detailed appeal to the Editor-in-Chief.
• Final Decision: The editorial board will review the appeal and make a final decision.

8. Reviewer Recognition

Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the quality of the journal:

• Acknowledgment: Reviewers’ contributions are recognized and acknowledged annually with their permission.
• Confidentiality: The journal ensures reviewer anonymity unless explicitly requested otherwise.

9. Publication Frequency

Cybernerves publishes two (02) issues per year. Manuscripts will be processed and published in the next available issue after acceptance, following final revisions and production formatting.

Cybernerves strives to ensure a fair, transparent, and constructive peer review process to maintain the quality of the research it publishes. All parties involved—authors, reviewers, and editors—are expected to contribute to the integrity and excellence of the journal.