At the Global Digital & Print Media Review (GDPMR), we are committed to fostering a culture of academic integrity, innovation, and inclusivity. Our editorial process is grounded in the principles of transparency, fairness, and scholarly rigor. We strive to ensure that every manuscript undergoes a thorough, unbiased peer review, guided by ethical standards and the highest academic norms.

Our goal is to curate research that not only advances knowledge within the social sciences but also has a meaningful impact on society. We value diversity in perspectives and encourage submissions from scholars across the globe, fostering interdisciplinary dialogue and contributing to global understanding.

We uphold a commitment to:

1. Integrity: Ensuring a plagiarism-free, ethically sound editorial process.
2. Quality: Maintaining rigorous standards to publish work that is both relevant and innovative.
3. Fairness: Providing a transparent, timely review process with decisions based solely on the quality of research.
4. Inclusivity: Promoting diverse voices and perspectives in the field of social sciences.

GDPMR’s editorial team is dedicated to nurturing academic excellence and promoting research that challenges conventional thinking while addressing contemporary global issues.

The Global Digital & Print Media Review (GDPMR) follows a structured, transparent, and rigorous editorial process to ensure the publication of high-quality and impactful research. Our editorial process is designed to maintain academic integrity, support authors, and uphold the highest ethical standards. Below is an outline of our process

Authors submit their manuscripts via the GDPMR online submission system. All submissions must adhere to the journal's formatting and submission guidelines.

Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to ensure that the manuscript fits within the scope of the journal. Manuscripts are also checked for plagiarism, ensuring they meet our strict threshold of no more than 10% similarity.

If the manuscript passes the initial screening, it is assigned to a subject-area editor with expertise in the manuscript's topic. The editor reviews the manuscript to assess its relevance, quality, and potential for impact.

The manuscript is sent to two or more expert reviewers for a double-blind peer review. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and are asked to provide objective and constructive feedback. The review process typically evaluates:

1. Originality and contribution to the field
2. Methodological rigor
3. Clarity and coherence of the argument
4. Relevance to social science research

Reviewers submit detailed reports, including their recommendation for one of the following actions:

1. Accept without revisions
2. Minor revisions
3. Major revisions
4. Reject

Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the assigned editor makes a preliminary decision, which is then discussed with the editor-in-chief (if needed). The editor will communicate the decision to the authors, providing constructive feedback and detailed suggestions for any required revisions.

If revisions are required, the authors are given a set period to revise the manuscript based on the reviewers’ and editors' feedback. Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated, and further revisions may be requested if necessary.

Once the editor is satisfied with the revisions, the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript is made. The authors are informed of the decision via email.

After acceptance, the manuscript undergoes professional copyediting to ensure clarity, consistency, and adherence to GDPMR’s style guidelines. Authors may be asked to review the final proofs before publication to ensure accuracy.

Accepted manuscripts are published in the next available issue of GDPMR. Articles are made available online, fully open-access, under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.

After publication, the editorial team monitors the impact of the article and engages with the scholarly community to promote the research.

At Global Digital & Print Media Review (GDPMR), we are committed to maintaining high standards of integrity, quality, and transparency in the publication process. These guidelines are intended to assist editors, authors, and reviewers in upholding these standards and ensuring that all manuscripts are treated with fairness and rigor.

1. Scope: Manuscripts submitted to GDPMR must be original works within the broad field of social sciences. Authors should ensure their work aligns with the journal’s aims and scope.
2. Plagiarism Check: All submissions undergo plagiarism screening. The GDPMR has a plagiarism threshold of 10%, and manuscripts exceeding this will be returned for revision or rejected. The Higher Education Commission (HEC) threshold of 19% will also be considered during the review.
3. Manuscript Format: Submissions must adhere to the GDPMR manuscript formatting guidelines detailed at https://gdpmrjournal.com/information/author-guidelines, which include complete author informaion, title page information, abstract, keywords, main text, references, and any figures or tables.
4. Licensing: Authors are required to agree to the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license upon submission. This license allows others to download and share the work, provided that proper credit is given, and the work is not altered or used commercially.

The decision-making process at Global Digital & Print Media Review (GDPMR) is structured to ensure fairness, transparency, and academic rigor. Each manuscript undergoes a systematic evaluation to determine whether it meets the journal's standards for quality, relevance, and originality. Below is a detailed overview of the process:

1. Editorial Office Check: Upon submission, the manuscript is first screened by the editorial office to ensure it adheres to the journal's formatting and submission guidelines. This includes verifying:
   1. Correct formatting (title page, abstract, keywords, etc.).
   2. Compliance with the plagiarism threshold (10% per GDPMR policy, and 19% per HEC guidelines).
   3. Completeness of author information and declarations (e.g., conflict of interest, copyright agreements).
2. Scope and Relevance: The Editor-in-Chief (or a designated editor) reviews the manuscript to ensure it aligns with the journal’s aims and scope, as well as its relevance to the field of social sciences. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be desk rejected.

1. Reviewer Assignment: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to two or more external peer reviewers based on their expertise in the subject area. The review process follows a double-blind model, ensuring anonymity for both the authors and reviewers.
2. Review Criteria: Reviewers assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:
   1. Originality and significance of the research.
   2. Clarity and coherence of the argument.
   3. Methodological rigor and validity of results.
   4. Quality of writing and adherence to ethical standards.
   5. Contribution to the existing body of knowledge in social sciences.
3. Reviewer Recommendations: After evaluation, reviewers submit their recommendations, which generally fall into one of the following categories:
   1. Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication with no or minimal revisions.
   2. Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes before it can be accepted.
   3. Major Revisions: Substantial changes are necessary, but the manuscript has the potential to be accepted after revision.
   4. Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication, either due to lack of originality, poor quality, or misalignment with the journal’s scope.

1. Consolidation of Reviews: The assigned handling editor consolidates the reviewers' feedback and submits a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. In cases where reviewers disagree significantly, a third reviewer may be consulted, or the editorial board may engage in further discussion.
2. Final Decision: Based on the reviewer feedback and editorial evaluation, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision. The possible outcomes include:
   1. Accept: The manuscript is approved for publication.
   2. Minor Revisions: The manuscript is conditionally accepted pending minor corrections, which must be addressed by the authors before final acceptance.
   3. Major Revisions: The manuscript is returned to the authors with a request for substantial changes. Upon resubmission, the manuscript may undergo further review.
   4. Reject: The manuscript is deemed unsuitable for publication in its current form.

1. Minor Revisions: Authors are given a short timeframe (typically 2–4 weeks) to make the requested minor revisions. These are generally reviewed by the handling editor before the final acceptance.
2. Major Revisions: For manuscripts requiring significant revisions, authors are given a longer timeframe (4–8 weeks) to address reviewer comments. The revised manuscript may undergo additional rounds of peer review depending on the extent of the changes.
3. Resubmission of Rejected Manuscripts: If a manuscript is rejected, authors are typically not invited to resubmit unless substantial revisions have been suggested. In such cases, the revised manuscript may be treated as a new submission.

1. Notification: Authors are informed of the decision via email, including detailed reviewer feedback and any editorial comments. For accepted manuscripts, this includes instructions for preparing the final version.
2. Appeals Process: If authors believe the decision was made in error or that reviewer feedback was biased or unfair, they may appeal the decision. Appeals must be submitted in writing and will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief. The editorial team will re-evaluate the manuscript in light of the appeal, though decisions following an appeal are final.

1. Final Submission: Upon acceptance, authors are required to submit the final version of their manuscript, adhering to the journal’s formatting and publication guidelines. Any outstanding issues such as copyright forms and licensing agreements (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) must be completed.
2. Copyediting and Proofreading: The manuscript undergoes copyediting to ensure clarity, grammatical correctness, and adherence to GDPMR’s style guidelines. Authors are provided with proofs for final approval before publication.
3. Online Publication: Once finalized, the manuscript is published online in the next available issue of GDPMR.

1. Conflict of Interest: Editors, reviewers, and authors must declare any conflicts of interest. Manuscripts where such conflicts could affect the decision-making process are reassigned to impartial editors.
2. Research Ethics: Manuscripts involving human or animal subjects must adhere to ethical research guidelines. Any ethical concerns raised during review will result in additional scrutiny or rejection.
3. Data Integrity: Editors ensure that all data presented in the manuscripts are transparent and replicable. Any suspected data fabrication or manipulation is thoroughly investigated.

Effective reviewer management is essential for maintaining the high standards of Global Digital & Print Media Review (GDPMR). It ensures that the peer review process is rigorous, fair, and efficient, ultimately contributing to the credibility of the journal and the quality of its published work. Below is an outline of GDPMR’s reviewer management process, which includes reviewer recruitment, assignment, communication, and evaluation.

Reviewer Recruitment and Selection

1. Expertise Matching: Reviewers are selected based on their subject matter expertise in relation to the manuscript’s topic. The editorial team ensures that reviewers have sufficient academic credentials and a strong publication history in the relevant field.
2. Diversity and Inclusivity: GDPMR strives to maintain a diverse pool of reviewers in terms of geographic location, gender, and academic background, ensuring a broad spectrum of perspectives. This helps avoid biases and enhances the journal’s global reach.
3. Invitation to Review: Potential reviewers are contacted via email with an invitation to review a manuscript. The invitation includes an abstract of the manuscript, the expected review timeline, and a conflict of interest statement. Reviewers have the option to accept or decline based on their availability and expertise.
4. Building Reviewer Databases: GDPMR maintains a dynamic reviewer database that is updated regularly. Editors continuously add new reviewers by identifying emerging scholars, networking at conferences, and seeking recommendations from the editorial board and published authors.

1. Double-Blind Review Process: GDPMR follows a double-blind peer review process where the identities of both the reviewers and the authors are concealed. Reviewers are assigned to manuscripts based on their expertise, and the editorial team ensures there are no conflicts of interest.
2. Reviewer Workload: To maintain the quality of reviews, GDPMR monitors the workload of its reviewers. The editorial team ensures that reviewers are not overwhelmed by limiting the number of manuscripts assigned to each reviewer within a specific timeframe.
3. Reviewer Balance: The journal aims to balance its reviewer assignments by engaging both senior and early-career researchers. This helps ensure a well-rounded evaluation of the manuscript from different perspectives within the academic community.

1. Review Quality: GDPMR provides reviewers with clear guidelines outlining the criteria for evaluating manuscripts, including originality, methodology, theoretical contribution, clarity of argument, and adherence to ethical standards. Reviewers are expected to offer constructive, impartial, and detailed feedback.
2. Timeliness: Reviewers are asked to submit their evaluations within a predetermined timeline (typically 2–4 weeks). Adhering to these deadlines ensures that the peer review process runs smoothly and that authors receive timely decisions on their submissions.
3. Confidentiality: Reviewers are required to maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process. Manuscripts must not be shared with others, discussed, or used for personal research purposes prior to publication.
4. Ethical Review: Reviewers are also responsible for flagging any ethical issues, such as potential plagiarism, data fabrication, or conflicts of interest, which they might detect during their review.

1. Clear Communication: The editorial team maintains regular communication with reviewers throughout the process, providing them with the necessary information and support. Reviewers are encouraged to contact the editor if they encounter difficulties with the review or need additional clarification.
2. Acknowledgment of Contribution: GDPMR values the important role reviewers play in maintaining the quality of the journal. Reviewers are acknowledged in the journal's annual report and are periodically offered special recognition for their outstanding contributions. Reviewers who consistently provide high-quality and timely reviews may be invited to join the editorial board.
3. Flexibility in Deadlines: While timeliness is critical, GDPMR understands that reviewers may occasionally need extra time due to academic or personal commitments. Editors may grant extensions upon request, provided they do not disrupt the overall publication timeline.

1. Review Monitoring: GDPMR's editors carefully assess the quality of the reviews submitted. Feedback that is too brief, non-constructive, or biased is flagged, and the reviewer may be removed from the journal’s reviewer pool if the issue persists.
2. Additional Reviews: If the reviews are conflicting or one reviewer’s report is inadequate, the editor may invite additional reviewers or consult members of the editorial board for further insight.
3. Reviewer Evaluation: GDPMR periodically evaluates reviewers based on the quality and consistency of their reviews. This includes:
   1. Timeliness in delivering reviews.
   2. Thoroughness and constructiveness of feedback.
   3. Ability to provide balanced and unbiased evaluations.

1. Annual Acknowledgment: Reviewers who have contributed significantly to GDPMR over the year are recognized publicly, with an annual list of reviewers published in the journal. Top-performing reviewers may also receive certificates of appreciation.
2. Reviewer Development: To engage and retain reviewers, GDPMR offers development opportunities such as webinars, workshops, and editorial roundtables to help reviewers enhance their skills and stay updated on the latest trends in peer review.
3. Incentives: GDPMR is considering various incentives to further motivate reviewers, such as discounts on publication fees, subscription benefits, or priority consideration for their own manuscript submissions.

1. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest (personal, financial, academic, or professional) that might affect their impartiality. If such a conflict arises, the reviewer is recused from evaluating the manuscript.
2. Reviewer Misconduct: In cases where a reviewer’s conduct is unethical (e.g., breach of confidentiality, plagiarism, biased reviews), the editorial team will take action, which may include removing the reviewer from the database and notifying other journals if necessary.

1. Double-Blind Review: GDPMR employs a double-blind review process, meaning both the reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other throughout the review. Editors must ensure that the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed. Ensure that manuscripts are properly anonymized before they are sent to reviewers. Take care to remove identifying information, such as names, institutional affiliations, and acknowledgments, from the document.

2. Reviewer Anonymity: The identity of the reviewers must not be revealed to the authors or to other reviewers. Editors are responsible for preserving the anonymity of reviewers, even after the completion of the review process. Avoid any correspondence or system issues that might accidentally reveal a reviewer's identity to authors. Reviewer details should not be included in any public or private discussion of the manuscript.

1. Communication with Authors: All correspondence between the editorial team and authors, including decisions, feedback, and reviewer reports, must be treated confidentially. Editors should ensure that only authorized individuals within the journal have access to this communication. Correspondence related to manuscript decisions, reviews, and revisions should only be shared with the authors and the editorial team. Emails or documents must not be forwarded or shared without permission.

2. Communication with Reviewers: Similarly, all correspondence with reviewers regarding a manuscript, including their reports, should remain confidential. Reviewer comments and evaluations must not be shared with anyone outside the editorial process. Editors must ensure that reviewers’ comments and feedback are only communicated to the authors in a way that maintains the anonymity and privacy of the reviewer.

1. Submission System Security: GDPMR uses an online submission and peer review system. Editors, staff, and reviewers are responsible for safeguarding their login credentials and ensuring that unauthorized individuals do not access the system. Ensure that passwords and access to the submission system are regularly updated and that only authorized personnel have access to manuscript data.

2. Secure Document Handling: Any manuscripts, reviewer reports, or related correspondence that are downloaded or handled outside of the submission system must be kept secure. Editors and reviewers should not store or transfer documents in unsecured locations or share them with unauthorized individuals. Use password-protected or encrypted devices and files when working with manuscripts or reports. Avoid storing confidential documents in public or unprotected folders.

1. Rejected Manuscripts: Manuscripts that are rejected by GDPMR should remain confidential, and any content from those manuscripts must not be shared or used in any form by the editorial team, reviewers, or staff. Ensure that rejected manuscripts and reviewer reports are properly archived or deleted from personal storage systems. Editors must not use unpublished information from rejected submissions for their own research or any other purposes.

2. Published Manuscripts: Once a manuscript is accepted and published, the content becomes publicly available. However, any information about the peer review process, including reviewer identities and confidential discussions, must still be kept private. Do not disclose information related to the peer review process, even after the manuscript is published. Only the content of the published manuscript may be made public.

1. Addressing Violations: Any breach of confidentiality, whether intentional or accidental, must be taken seriously. Editors are responsible for investigating breaches and taking appropriate action to resolve the issue. If a breach of confidentiality occurs (e.g., the accidental sharing of reviewer identities or unauthorized access to manuscripts), the editor should take immediate steps to mitigate the damage, inform affected parties, and prevent further violations.

2. Consequences of Breaches: Individuals who violate the confidentiality protocols—whether they are editors, reviewers, or staff—may face consequences such as removal from the reviewer pool, revocation of editorial privileges, or other appropriate disciplinary measures. Establish clear consequences for breaches of confidentiality, and communicate these policies to all parties involved in the editorial process.

At Global Digital & Print Media Review (GDPMR), we are committed to ensuring a transparent, fair, and rigorous peer review process. We recognize that authors may occasionally wish to appeal editorial decisions. The following appeals process is in place to provide authors with the opportunity to address their concerns regarding decisions made about their manuscript submissions.

Grounds for Appeal

Authors may submit an appeal if they believe that:

1. The decision was based on a significant misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the manuscript.
2. There were factual errors in the peer review process that materially affected the decision.
3. There was evidence of bias, conflict of interest, or other ethical concerns with the review process.

Appeals that do not provide substantive grounds (such as mere disagreement with the reviewers' opinions) are unlikely to be considered.

If an author wishes to appeal a decision, the following steps must be followed:

1. Timeframe for Appeal: Appeals must be submitted within 30 days of receiving the decision letter. Appeals submitted after this period may not be considered.
2. Formal Written Appeal: Authors must submit a formal, detailed appeal letter addressed to the Editor-in-Chief. The appeal should clearly outline the reasons for the appeal and provide evidence to support the claim that the review process was flawed or the decision was unjustified.
   1. Action: The appeal letter should include specific references to the reviewer comments or editorial decisions that are in question.
3. Revised Manuscript (if applicable): If the appeal involves proposed revisions or clarifications to the manuscript, authors should submit a revised version of the manuscript along with the appeal letter, highlighting the changes made in response to the reviewers' comments.

Once an appeal is submitted, the following steps are taken:

1. Initial Editorial Review: The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal letter and the original decision. The Editor-in-Chief may consult the handling editor or members of the editorial board to assess whether the appeal has merit. The editor will determine whether the appeal raises valid concerns about the fairness or accuracy of the review process.

2. Further Peer Review (if necessary): If the Editor-in-Chief deems the appeal valid, the manuscript may be sent for further peer review, either to the original reviewers (with detailed responses from the authors) or to new reviewers who are impartial and have no prior knowledge of the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief will decide whether additional reviewers are needed or if the appeal can be resolved based on the original reviews and the author’s response.

3. Final Decision: After reviewing the appeal and any additional reviews, the Editor-in-Chief will make a final decision. This decision may include:

   1. Upholding the original rejection.

   2. Accepting the manuscript, subject to revisions.

   3. Sending the manuscript for further revision and re-evaluation.

Action: The final decision is communicated to the author in writing, explaining the rationale behind the outcome.

1. No Guarantee of Acceptance: An appeal does not guarantee that the manuscript will be accepted. The decision will be based on the merits of the appeal and the manuscript’s suitability for publication in GDPMR.
2. Single Appeal: Only one appeal per manuscript is allowed. Repeated appeals for the same manuscript, or appeals based solely on disagreements with editorial judgment, will not be entertained.

GDPMR takes allegations of bias, ethical misconduct, or conflict of interest very seriously. If an appeal raises concerns about potential ethical violations, such as a conflict of interest among the reviewers or editors, the matter will be referred to an independent ethics committee for investigation. If any ethical violations are identified, the Editor-in-Chief will take appropriate corrective action, which may include reassigning the manuscript to a new handling editor or reviewer.

1. Acknowledgment of Appeal: Authors will receive an acknowledgment of their appeal within 5 business days of submission.
2. Decision Timeline: The review and resolution of the appeal may take 4–8 weeks, depending on the complexity of the case and whether additional peer reviews are necessary.