At Global Regional Review (GRR), we deeply value the vital role that reviewers play in maintaining the quality, integrity, and academic rigor of our journal. The Reviewer Recognition section is designed to acknowledge the significant contributions of our reviewers and to provide them with meaningful appreciation for their efforts. 

Each year, GRR publishes a formal acknowledgment of all reviewers who have contributed their time and expertise to the peer review process. This list is made available both in print and online to publicly recognize their efforts. Reviewers’ names are listed in the journal’s annual report and on the journal’s website to celebrate their contributions to the academic community.

Reviewers who complete multiple reviews or provide exceptional feedback are awarded personalized certificates of appreciation. These certificates serve as official recognition of the reviewer’s hard work and commitment to upholding scholarly standards.

Editors will issue certificates to reviewers annually, which can be included in their professional portfolios as a testament to their service.

Each year, GRR identifies top-performing reviewers based on the quality and timeliness of their reviews. These reviewers are honored with a Top Reviewer Award, which is highlighted on the journal’s website and included in a special recognition section in the journal.

Editors evaluate reviewers based on their detailed feedback, contribution to the review process, and adherence to deadlines.

Reviewers who consistently provide high-quality reviews are offered opportunities for professional development. This includes invitations to participate in editorial workshops, webinars, and roundtables focusing on the peer review process and academic publishing trends.

Editors will invite top reviewers to training events where they can enhance their reviewing skills and learn about advancements in scholarly publishing.

Reviewers who have provided a certain number of reviews or who have received high evaluations from the editors may be awarded digital badges. These badges can be displayed on professional profiles, such as LinkedIn or academic networking platforms, to highlight their role in the peer review process.

Editors will distribute these badges to reviewers as part of the journal’s recognition program and encourage their use in professional settings.

Thank you for agreeing to review for GRR. Your expertise and commitment help ensure the integrity and quality of the content we publish. Please follow these guidelines to maintain our high standards.

Confidentiality

1. The review process is strictly confidential. Do not share or discuss the manuscript or your review with anyone outside of the editorial team unless authorized.
2. Avoid using or citing any information from the manuscript in your own research until it is published.

1. Decline the review if you have any personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the authors or the subject matter of the manuscript.
2. If you are unsure about a potential conflict, please inform the editorial office for clarification.

1. Aim to submit your review within the agreed-upon timeframe (typically 2–4 weeks). If an extension is needed, inform the editorial office as soon as possible.
2. Timely reviews help ensure a smooth editorial process and benefit both the authors and the journal.

1. Ensure that the manuscript fits within the scope of GRR and contributes to the fields of social sciences.
2. Comment on the relevance, originality, and potential impact of the research.

Your review should include the following elements:

1. Summary of the Paper
   Provide a concise summary of the manuscript, highlighting the research objectives, methods, and conclusions. This helps authors know if their key points are clearly conveyed.

2. Major Comments
   Identify any significant issues regarding:

   1. Research Design: Comment on the appropriateness of the methodology and whether it supports the research objectives.
   2. Data & Analysis: Assess the quality and sufficiency of the data and the rigor of the analysis.
   3. Findings & Conclusions: Evaluate whether the conclusions are well-supported by the data.
   4. Originality & Contribution: Comment on the novelty and contribution of the research to the field.

3. Minor Comments

   1. Suggest improvements in writing clarity, structure, or formatting.
   2. Point out inconsistencies, inaccuracies, or areas needing more explanation.

4. Recommendation
   Based on your assessment, provide a recommendation:

   1. Accept as is
   2. Minor revisions
   3. Major revisions
   4. Reject

1. Comment on the clarity, organization, and readability of the manuscript. Authors may be experts in their field but could need help refining their writing.
2. If the language is significantly unclear or ungrammatical, suggest professional language editing.

GRR has a strict plagiarism policy with a threshold of 10 percent similarity. If you notice high levels of overlap or any unethical practices, notify the editorial team immediately.

GRR follows a double-blind peer review process. Please do not disclose your identity to the authors or include any self-identifying information in your review.

1. Provide clear, specific, and constructive feedback aimed at improving the manuscript.
2. Be respectful and professional in your tone. Harsh or dismissive language is discouraged.

In case of major revisions, you may be invited to review the revised manuscript. Please ensure that the authors have adequately addressed your comments and suggestions.

As a reviewer for the Global Regional Review (GRR), you play a crucial role in ensuring the quality, relevance, and integrity of the research published in our journal. Below are your key responsibilities

1. Offer an objective and unbiased evaluation of the manuscript.
2. Base your review solely on the content of the manuscript, without allowing personal biases or any external factors (e.g., nationality, gender, institution, etc.) to influence your judgment.

1. Treat the manuscript as a confidential document. Do not share its contents with anyone outside the editorial team, including colleagues or students.
2. Avoid discussing the manuscript outside the formal review process and never use information gained from the review for personal advantage.

1. Immediately notify the editorial office if you have any conflict of interest, whether personal, financial, or professional, that could affect your ability to review the manuscript impartially.
2. If you feel you are unable to provide an objective review, please decline the review request.

1. Assess the manuscript for its relevance, originality, and contribution to the field of social sciences.
2. Provide feedback on the following aspects:
   1. Research design and methodology: Are the methods appropriate and clearly outlined?
   2. Data and analysis: Is the data sufficient, accurate, and well-analyzed?
   3. Interpretation and conclusions: Are the conclusions supported by the data?
   4. Clarity and coherence: Is the manuscript well-written and logically structured?

1. Report any concerns regarding ethical issues, such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or inappropriate research practices.
2. GRR follows a plagiarism threshold of 10 percent. Inform the editorial team if you suspect any form of academic dishonesty.

1. Offer constructive and actionable comments aimed at improving the manuscript.
2. Avoid vague or overly critical remarks. Suggestions should be specific and helpful.
3. Ensure that your feedback is respectful and professional in tone, even if significant revisions are required.

1. Submit your review within the agreed deadline (typically 2–4 weeks). If more time is needed, inform the editorial office as soon as possible.
2. Timely reviews are essential to maintaining the efficiency and integrity of the peer review process.

1. Uphold the double-blind review process, ensuring that neither the author nor the reviewer knows each other’s identity.
2. Refrain from including any personal information that could reveal your identity in the review comments.

1. Based on your assessment, make a clear recommendation:
   1. Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication as is or with minor changes.
   2. Revise: The manuscript requires major or minor revisions before it can be accepted.
   3. Reject: The manuscript does not meet GRR’s standards or is not suitable for publication.
2. Provide a rationale for your recommendation, supported by clear evidence from the manuscript.

1. Be willing to review revised versions of the manuscript if the authors are asked to make major changes.
2. Ensure that the authors have satisfactorily addressed your comments and made the necessary revisions.

1. Treat the authors with respect, regardless of the manuscript’s quality.
2. Avoid making personal or derogatory comments in your review.

As a reviewer for the Global Regional Review (GRR), you are entrusted with the responsibility of evaluating manuscripts in a confidential and ethical manner. By agreeing to review a manuscript for GRR, you agree to the following confidentiality terms:

As a reviewer for the Global Regional Review (GRR), you are entrusted with the responsibility of evaluating manuscripts in a confidential and ethical manner. By agreeing to review a manuscript for GRR, you agree to the following confidentiality terms:

1. The manuscript and all related materials provided to you for review are confidential and should not be shared with or disclosed to any third parties, including colleagues, students, or other individuals, without the explicit permission of the GRR editorial office.
2. The content of the manuscript, including any ideas, data, or findings, must be treated as proprietary information of the authors and cannot be used or cited prior to the manuscript's publication.

1. You agree not to use any information, data, or ideas gained from the manuscript for personal, professional, or commercial gain.
2. The manuscript content may not be used in your own research or shared with others until the manuscript has been officially published by GRR.

1. If you have any personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest that may influence your review, you must immediately disclose these to the editorial office and decline the review if necessary.
2. Conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to, personal relationships with the authors, competitive research, or financial interests related to the content of the manuscript.

1. GRR follows a double-blind peer review process. You agree to maintain the anonymity of both the authors and yourself throughout the review process.
2. You must refrain from including any identifying information in your review comments or any communication with the authors.

1. You agree not to disclose your role as a reviewer for a specific manuscript, or discuss the content, status, or outcome of the review, with anyone other than the GRR editorial office.
2. Any inquiries or concerns about the review should be directed solely to the GRR editorial office.

You agree to delete or destroy all copies of the manuscript and any supplementary materials once your review has been submitted, unless retention of these materials is explicitly requested by the GRR editorial office.

1. You agree to conduct your review with the highest ethical standards, ensuring that your evaluation is fair, objective, and free from any personal biases.
2. Any concerns regarding plagiarism, ethical violations, or fraudulent data should be immediately reported to the GRR editorial office.