Gadaa Journal uses a double-blind reviewing process in which authors’ and reviewers’ identities are concealed. Our reviewers are encouraged to provide substantive, constructive reviews that provide suggestions for improving the work and distinguish between mandatory and non-mandatory recommendations. The Journal adopts COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers indicated below.

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere to

Peer reviewers should:

only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner

respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal

not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others

declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest

not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations

be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments

acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner

provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise

recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct

Kindly read the complete Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers is available at COPE’s website:

In order to fill the Manuscript evaluation form given separately, reviewers are suggested to use the following criteria of evaluation for the different sections of the manuscript and write a report of their evaluation