Global Digital & Print Media Review (GDPMR) uses a double-blind peer-review process for research articles and other manuscripts that require external peer review. The journal's peer-review process is designed to provide an impartial and independent assessment of submitted manuscripts and to maintain the quality and integrity of the published research.

All manuscripts are assessed on the basis of their scholarly quality, originality, methodological soundness, relevance to the journal's aims and scope, and contribution to the relevant field.

GDPMR uses double-blind peer review.

Under this process:

• Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.
• Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors.
• The manuscript provided to reviewers is anonymized before external review.
• Authors must therefore ensure that the manuscript submitted for review does not contain names, affiliations, email addresses, acknowledgements, or other information that could identify the authors.
• Author information should be provided separately through the submission system or in a separate title page.
• Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts objectively and solely on the basis of their scholarly content.

Initial Editorial Screening

• All manuscripts must be submitted through the GDPMR online submission system.
• The editorial office first checks the manuscript for basic compliance with the journal's submission requirements.
• The editors assess whether the manuscript falls within the journal's aims and scope.
• The manuscript may also be assessed for originality, plagiarism or other publication-integrity concerns.
• Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements or fall outside its scope may be rejected without external peer review.

Reviewer Selection

• Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally sent to at least two independent external reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.

• Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic expertise, research experience, and suitability for the manuscript.

• Reviewers should not have a personal, professional, financial, or other conflict of interest with the authors or the research under review.

• Reviewers should not be selected solely because they were recommended by the authors.

• Reviewers who have a conflict of interest must decline the review invitation and inform the editorial office.

Double-Blind Review

• Reviewers receive an anonymized version of the manuscript.

• Reviewers do not receive the names or affiliations of the authors.

• Authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers.

• Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently and provide comments and recommendations to the editorial team.

• Reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of all materials received during the review process.

Reviewer Assessment

Reviewers are normally asked to assess:

• Originality and significance of the research.

• Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

• Clarity of the research objectives and research questions.

• Appropriateness and rigor of the methodology.

• Quality and presentation of the analysis.

• Accuracy and adequacy of the conclusions.

• Use and relevance of the literature.

• Organization and clarity of the manuscript.

• Compliance with relevant ethical and research standards.

Reviewers may recommend:

• Accept

• Minor revisions

• Major revisions

• Reject

A reviewer's recommendation is advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an editor authorized by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into consideration the reviewers' reports and the overall quality and suitability of the manuscript.

Editorial Decision

• The editorial decision is based on the reviewers' assessments and the editor's independent evaluation of the manuscript.
• Where reviewers disagree, the editor may seek an additional independent review or make a decision based on the available reports and editorial assessment.
• A manuscript requiring revision may be returned to the authors for further consideration.
• Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation where appropriate.
• The editorial decision and relevant reviewer comments are communicated to the corresponding author.
• Receipt of a favorable reviewer recommendation does not guarantee acceptance. The final decision remains the responsibility of the editorial team.