The GI Journal of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences recognizes peer reviewers as essential contributors to maintaining the scientific quality, integrity, and credibility of the journal. The journal follows a fair, confidential, and ethical peer review process in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (publicationethics.org ; ICMJE Recommendations)

Role of Reviewers

Reviewers are responsible for critically evaluating submitted manuscripts based on:

• Scientific originality and significance
• Methodological accuracy and validity
• Ethical compliance
• Clarity and organization of the manuscript
• Relevance to the journal’s scope
• Appropriateness of references and conclusions

Reviewers should provide constructive, unbiased, and evidence-based comments to assist editors and authors in improving manuscript quality.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, copy, or use any unpublished information from submitted manuscripts for personal or professional advantage.

Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal follows a double-blind peer review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other to ensure impartial evaluation and minimize bias.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest related to the manuscript, including financial, institutional, academic, or personal relationships. Reviewers with significant conflicts should decline the review invitation.

Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to respond promptly to review invitations and complete reviews within the assigned timeframe. If reviewers are unable to complete the review on time, they should inform the editorial office immediately.

Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers should:

• Identify relevant published work not cited by the authors
• Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or unethical research practices
• Maintain professionalism and avoid personal criticism of authors
• Provide objective and respectful comments

Recommendation Categories

Reviewers may recommend:

• Accept without revision
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Reject

Final editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editors based on reviewer comments and editorial evaluation.

Reviewer Recognition

The journal values the contribution of reviewers and may provide:

• Reviewer certificates
• Acknowledgment in annual reviewer lists
• Editorial board consideration for outstanding reviewers

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscript content into public AI tools or software platforms that may compromise manuscript confidentiality. Any use of AI-assisted tools during review should comply with ethical and confidentiality standards.