1. Publishing Standards and Guidelines

GOSP follows the following guidelines and standards for its journals:

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)

Council of Scientific Editors (CSE)

National Information Standards Organization (NISO)

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)

World Medical Association (WMA)

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)

Randomized controlled trials (CONSORT)

Protocols for randomized controlled protocols (SPIRIT)

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) and protocols (PRISMA-P)

Observational studies (STROBE)

Case reports (CARE)

Qualitative research (COREQ)

Diagnostic/prognostic studies (STARD and TRIPOD)

Economic evaluations (CHEERS)

Pre-clinical animal studies (ARRIVE)

Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature (SAMPL)

back to top

2. Type of Peer Review

GOSP operates double anonymized peer review, in which the referees remain anonymous to the author(s) throughout and following the refereeing process, whilst the identity of the author(s) is likewise unknown to the reviewers.

back to top

3. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript.
The editorial team ensures that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the authors or the research.

back to top

4. Review Process

4.1 Submission and Initial Assessment

Upon submission, manuscripts are checked by the editorial office for adherence to the journal’s scope, formatting guidelines, and basic quality standards.
Manuscripts that fail to meet these criteria may be returned to the authors without further review.


The manuscript is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board Member to determine its suitability for peer review.The editor evaluates the originality, relevance, and scientific merit of the work. Manuscripts deemed unsuitable are rejected at this stage.

4.3 Peer Review Assignment

Suitable manuscripts are assigned to two or more expert reviewers who possess the relevant knowledge and expertise in the subject area.

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript’s originality, scientific validity, methodology, significance, and clarity. They also provide recommendations on acceptance, revision, or rejection.

4.4 Editorial Decision

The editor evaluates the reviewers’ comments and recommendations to make one of the following decisions:

Accept: The manuscript is accepted without revisions.

Minor Revision: Authors are asked to address minor issues before acceptance.

Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required; the revised manuscript may undergo re-review.

Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or scope.

A detailed decision letter is sent to the authors, including the reviewers’ feedback.

4.5 Revisions

Authors are given a specified timeframe to submit a revised manuscript addressing the reviewers’ and editor’s comments.

The revised manuscript is reviewed by the editor and, if necessary, sent back to the original or new reviewers for further evaluation.

4.6 Final Decision

After all revisions have been satisfactorily addressed, the editor makes a final decision on the manuscript’s acceptance.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting and production.

4.7 Appeals

Authors who disagree with a rejection decision may submit an appeal.

Appeals are reviewed by a senior editor or an independent reviewer, and the final decision is communicated to the authors.

4.8 Production

Once a manuscript is accepted for publication, it enters the production phase.

back to top

4.2 Editorial Screening

5. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts and correspondence are treated as confidential.
Reviewers are prohibited from sharing or discussing manuscripts with anyone outside the review process.

back to top

6. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline the review if a conflict exists.
Editors will ensure that the peer-review process remains unbiased and impartial.

back to top

7. Appeals and Re-reviews

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a detailed justification. Appeals will be reviewed by a senior editor or additional reviewers.
Revised manuscripts may be subjected to re-review by the original or new reviewers.

back to top

8. Ethical Standards

GOSP adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for ethical peer-review practices.
Any ethical concerns raised during peer review, such as plagiarism or data manipulation, will be investigated thoroughly.

back to top

9. Transparency and Accountability

The journal maintains detailed records of the peer-review process for all manuscripts.
Editors and reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive and respectful feedback to authors.
By adhering to this peer-review policy, GOSP ensures the publication of high-quality and ethically sound research that advances scientific knowledge.

back to top