Editorial Board and Peer Review
The journal is supported by a distinguished and diverse editorial board comprising internationally recognized scholars, researchers, and subject experts in Computer Science, Engineering, and interdisciplinary technological research areas from multiple countries. This multinational editorial structure ensures broad academic perspectives, strengthens the quality and fairness of editorial decisions, and promotes internationally recognized standards in scholarly publishing.
All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous, transparent, and unbiased peer-review process conducted by qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject area. Each submission is evaluated on the basis of originality, scientific contribution, technical quality, methodological rigor, innovation, clarity, and relevance to the field. The journal is committed to maintaining integrity, confidentiality, and objectivity throughout the editorial and review process.
By engaging experienced editors and reviewers from diverse academic, cultural, and research backgrounds, the journal upholds high standards of academic excellence while encouraging international collaboration, interdisciplinary innovation, and the global exchange of scientific and technological knowledge.
Editorial Decision and Revision Process
All research articles, review papers, and communications submitted to GIMS journals undergo a comprehensive peer-review process and typically receive at least two independent review reports. Throughout the editorial process, the Editorial Office and handling Academic Editor work collaboratively to ensure a fair, timely, and high-quality review experience. Editorial decisions communicated to authors generally fall into the following categories:
Accept in Present Form
The manuscript is accepted for publication without requiring any further revisions.
Accept after Minor Revision
The manuscript is conditionally accepted pending minor revisions based on reviewer and editorial comments. Authors are normally requested to submit the revised version within a short revision period.
Reconsider after Major Revision
The manuscript shows significant potential but requires substantial revisions before further consideration. Authors must provide a detailed point-by-point response addressing reviewer comments and clearly justify any recommendations that cannot be implemented. Revised manuscripts may undergo additional rounds of peer review to ensure scientific quality and technical accuracy.
Reject and Encourage Resubmission
Manuscripts requiring extensive additional experiments, major methodological improvements, or substantial restructuring may be rejected with an invitation to resubmit after comprehensive revision. Resubmitted manuscripts are treated as new submissions and may undergo a fresh review process while maintaining continuity with the previous submission history.
Reject
Manuscripts containing serious technical flaws, ethical concerns, insufficient originality, or lacking significant scientific contribution may be rejected without an invitation for resubmission.
Accepted manuscripts proceed to professional copy-editing, language editing, formatting, proofreading, and final production stages before publication to ensure clarity, consistency, and high editorial quality.
