GRJBM’s Peer Review Process

The peer review process includes:

1. Desk review using Plagiarism Checker X (≤20% threshold)
2. Blind peer review by at least two reviewers per paper
3. Manuscript tracking by ID numbers
4. Structured evaluation using the following 4-point rubric:

S/N	Basis for Journal Review	Excellent	Above Average	Average	Below Average/ Poor
1	The Topics suitability to the Scope of the Journal
2	Clarity of the Research Problem Identified / Addressed by the study
3	The objectives of the Study
4	Description of the Scope of the Study
5	How Scientific was the Sampling Method & Technique Adopted
6	Data Analytical Procedure & Robustness
7	Discussion of the Results
8	Suitability of the Findings to the objectives of the study
9	Relevance to the Field of the Journal
10	Originality/Contributions to Knowledge
	DECISION:
	Accept as was submitted
	Accept After Minor Correction
	Accept After Major Correction
	Reject

The resulting review report is then sent to the Editor-In-Chief for the concluding decision:

• If the paper’s average is appraised ‘Excellent:4’, the paper is accepted as submitted.
• If adjudged ‘Above Average: 3’: There are some minor corrections to be made before the paper will be accepted for publication. Thus, the article is sent back to the author to make such corrections and resubmit it for publication.
• If the paper is assessed ‘Average: 2’ that means some major corrections need to be made before it is accepted for publication. Thus, the article is sent back to the author to make such corrections and resubmit it for publication.
• If the paper is assessed “Below Average or Poor”: 1, there are many fundamental errors and so, the paper will be rejected from being published.