Double-anonymous peer review
GRETA Journal uses double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review with at least two independent reviewers for each research manuscript progressing beyond editorial screening. Authors’ identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewers’ identities are concealed from authors. Authors must provide an anonymised manuscript and remove identifying details from the review files and file metadata.
The handling editor assesses relevance to the journal’s scope, completeness, research ethics and compliance with the author guidelines. A manuscript may be returned for clarification or declined at screening with an explanation. Submission does not guarantee review or acceptance.
Reviewers are independent subject or methods experts who are not members of the journal’s editorial office. The handling editor selects and manually invites reviewers after checking their identity, expertise and competing interests. Authors may suggest reviewers, but the editor independently verifies and selects any suggested person; a suggestion does not guarantee an invitation. Reviewer invitations are not issued automatically.
Reviewers assess the contribution, clarity, methods, interpretation and support for the conclusions. Supplementary material necessary to evaluate the research is supplied to reviewers and assessed with the manuscript.
Independence and confidentiality
Reviewers must disclose competing interests and decline assignments they cannot assess impartially. Papers involving an editor, board member or another conflicted person are assigned to an independent, non-conflicted handling editor. The conflicted person takes no part in reviewer selection or the decision.
Manuscripts, supplementary files and correspondence are confidential. Reviewers must not contact authors directly, delegate reviews without permission, or upload unpublished material to external AI tools. Any authorised assistance must be disclosed to the editor.
Decisions and revisions
The handling editor considers the reports, requests additional expertise where necessary, and explains the decision. Authors must respond to comments and identify revisions; substantial changes may return to reviewers. Authors receive updates about material delays and may request withdrawal. Appeals follow the publication ethics procedures.
Reviewer identities and reports are treated as confidential and are not published. Authors receive anonymised feedback relevant to the editorial decision. Editorials, news, interviews and non-research book reviews receive editorial assessment and are clearly distinguished from externally peer-reviewed research; research content is not exempted from external review because it was invited.
One active submission
A corresponding author may have only one active submission. Rejection or withdrawal allows a new submission. After acceptance, the corresponding author must wait until publication before submitting another manuscript. This restriction does not apply solely because someone is a co-author.
Questions may be directed to the editorial contact.