Peer Review Policy

1. Commitment to Scholarly Standards

The GSSO Journal of International Security Studies is committed to upholding the highest standards of academic publishing. We adhere to the principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and aspire to meet the criteria set by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).

All original research papers and policy briefs submitted to the GSSO Journal undergo mandatory peer review before publication. Strategic commentaries and book reviews receive editorial review.

2. Review Process

2.1 Initial Screening

Upon receipt, manuscripts are screened by the editorial office for scope relevance, completeness, and adherence to submission guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements are returned to authors within 7–10 working days with feedback.

2.2 Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts passing initial screening are assigned to two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area. The review process is double-blind: neither authors nor reviewers are aware of each other's identities. Reviewers are selected from our pool of qualified academics and subject-matter experts at recognised institutions.

2.3 Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts against the following criteria:

• Originality and contribution to the field
• Methodological rigour and appropriateness
• Clarity and quality of argumentation
• Adequacy of the literature review
• Soundness of conclusions relative to evidence presented
• Relevance to international security, strategic studies, or cognate disciplines
• Quality of writing and adherence to citation standards

2.4 Decisions

Based on reviewer reports, the handling editor makes one of four decisions:

• Accept — manuscript is accepted for publication as submitted
• Minor Revisions — accepted subject to minor changes (no re-review required)
• Major Revisions — substantial revisions required; revised manuscript will be re-reviewed
• Reject — manuscript is not suitable for publication

2.5 Timeline

We aim to complete the peer review process within 6–8 weeks of submission. Authors are notified of the editorial decision along with structured reviewer feedback.

3. Publication Ethics

3.1 Originality

All submissions must be original work not previously published and not under consideration by another journal. Authors must disclose any related prior publications.

3.2 Plagiarism

All manuscripts are checked for plagiarism. Any submission found to contain plagiarised material will be rejected and the author's institution may be notified.

3.3 Conflicts of Interest

Authors must declare any financial or personal relationships that could be perceived as influencing their work. Reviewers must recuse themselves from evaluating manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists.

3.4 Corrections and Retractions

If errors are identified after publication, the journal will issue a correction notice. In cases of serious ethical violations or irreproducible findings, the journal reserves the right to retract published articles in accordance with COPE retraction guidelines.

4. Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback
• Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe (typically 3–4 weeks)
• Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript and review process
• Declare any potential conflicts of interest
• Not use unpublished material from reviewed manuscripts for personal benefit

5. Open Access Policy

The GSSO Journal publishes all accepted work under an open-access model. There are no article processing charges (APCs) for authors. Published articles are freely available at geostrategicstudies.org.

6. Working Papers

GSSO also publishes a Working Paper Series for early-stage research, preliminary findings, and emerging analyses that have not yet undergone formal peer review. Working papers are clearly labelled as such and carry a disclaimer noting their pre-review status. Authors of working papers are encouraged to submit revised versions for formal peer review.

7. Appeals

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may do so by writing to the Editor-in-Chief with a detailed response to reviewer comments and a justification for reconsideration. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, if warranted, the manuscript may be sent for additional review.

8. Contact

For questions regarding the peer review process, editorial standards, or publication ethics:

Editorial Office: editor@geostrategicstudies.org
Website: geostrategicstudies.org