GMPC Editorial Board

GMPC journals are powered by several academic experts from all over the world. Our editorial board comprises; Editor-in-Chief, section/topic editors, and editors. The editorial board is responsible for the peer review process, including pre-screening, selection and invitation of reviewers, assessment of the reviewers' comments, and finally making the decisions. Editors are also responsible for upholding the GMPC journals policies and ethics standards and work to promote the GMPC mission to serve science by enhancing "Knowledge Globalization".

Editor-in-Chief

In addition to following up the sequences of the peer-review process and approval of the complete issue, the Editor-in-Chief at GMPC is responsible for the following activities: i) approval or making the final decision on manuscripts based on scientific editor and reviewer comments, ii) enhancing the high scientific quality of published papers within the journal's scope, ii) ensuring the success of the journal within the scientific community, iii) suggesting topics for special issues, iii) approval of scientists to join the "Editorial Board "; iv) supporting topic editors and editors. v) understanding, leading, and upholding the peer review, guidelines, and ethics. The initial term is for two years.

Advisory board

The GMPC advisory board will provide guidance to the editor-in-chief on journal development strategies and policies. The main roles of GMPC advisory board are:

• i) Pre-screen new submission and make decision regarding them, especially when there is a conflict of interest.
• ii) Suggest ideas for journal special issues.
• iii) Provide feedback on the publication’s policy.
• iv) Help resolve appeals cases or ethical disputes.

Section Editor

A section editor is a leader in his particular field responsible for the scientific quality of a specific topic/section. His roles are as follows: i) determining the scope of his topic/section, ii) suggesting topics for special issues; iii) providing support and guidance to the editorial board, iv) supporting the Editor-in-Chief in making the final decision regarding whether a paper can be published after peer-review and revisions, v) inviting/suggesting of scientists to join the editorial board, iv) understanding, leading, and upholding the peer review and ethics guidelines and ethics. The initial term is for two years.

Editors

Editors are responsible for the following activities: i) selection and invitation of reviewers, assessment of the reviewers' comments, and finally making the decisions, ii) suggesting practices for the development of journal strategies, iii) organizing "Special Issues" related to their research field. The initial term is for two years.

Reviewers

GMPC relies on the crucial role of the reviewers to maintain high-quality publishing standards. Therefore, GMPC endeavors for rigorous peer review to guarantee that each manuscript is thoroughly evaluated. GMPC expects reviewers to assess the manuscripts promptly, transparently, and ethically. The reviewers are selected carefully and must meet several criteria;

• i) active researchers in their field and holding a Ph.D. degree as the minimum academic qualification,
• ii) compiled records of publications (ResearchGate/Scopus),
• iii) qualified to assess the manuscript based on their experience, iv) no conflict of interest with the authors. It is advised that reviewers notify the editor whether or not the paper has been improved over the prior version.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

GMPC editors invites at least two reviewers (single-blind peer review) for any submitted manuscripts. The invitation includes both the title and abstract. Invited reviewers can accept or decline the invitation within one week. Reviewers can also suggest alternative reviewers if they decide to decline. Reviewers are asked to send their feedback in a period of 2 weeks after accepting the invitation. The main ethical responsibilities of reviewers are:

• 1- Constructive critique: reviewers should highlight the positive the negative aspects constructively and recommend how the manuscript can be improved when needed.
• 2- Competence: Reviewers should accept to review the manuscript only when they have adequate expertise to provide an authoritative assessment.
• 3- Declaration of Confidentiality: i) keeping the reviewed manuscript's contents confidential until the article is published. ii) not exposing their identities to authors in the assessment report, iii) notifying the editorial office if the reviewer intends to delegate a colleague to review the manuscript on his behalf.
• 4- Disclosure conflicts of interest. The potential conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to) the following:
  • i) reviewer had a previous cooperation or was in a co-author with the submitted author/s within the last five years,
  • ii) reviewer are working at the same institute/university of the author/s,
  • iii) reviewer has a close personal relationship with any of the authors,
  • iv) financial conflict of interest: Reviewer may profit or lose financially from the publication of the reviewed manuscript,
  • v) non-financial conflicts of interest (political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, commercial) with any of the authors.

Guidelines for Reviewers

• 1- Reviewers must not propose citations of their own, close colleagues, or the journal's work unless it is essential to improve the quality of the reviewed manuscript and after notifying the editors of the required citations.
• 2- In evaluating and making a recommendation for manuscripts, personal or professional bias should be excluded without regard to the author's race, ethnic origin, sex, religion, or citizenship.
• 3- Reviewers should maintain a neutral tone while delivering helpful comments to assist authors in improving their work.
• 4- Assessment criteria: Reviewers assessment should be based on the following criteria: i) relevance to the journal's scope and mission, ii) scientific merit and novelty of the work, iii) significant contribution to the field, iv) coherently and quality of writing i.e. coherent, well organized and written with a good scientific English, vi) reviewers should also evaluate the manuscript for any ethical concern and/or inappropriate self-citations. vii) comments should be clear and detailed to understand. In addition, reviewers should consider the following Checklist:
• i) First read-through: Original, clear, well written, well-structured, appropriate study design and approach, relevant for the field, English has been used correctly and readable.
• ii) Title: Expresses clearly the main idea of the manuscript and emphasizes the significance of the study, without unnecessary description or unknown abbreviations.
• iii) Abstract: Clear overview of the objectives, main methodologies, important results and conclusions, enough data to stand alone, and devoid of unnecessary information.
• iv) Introduction: Clear summary of the current state of the topic, explaining why the study was needed, the aim of the study, clear and appropriate research question.
• v) Materials and methods: Appropriate study design, adequate data to repeat the experiments, suitability and feasibility of the experimental and analysis methodology, proper control and validation, sufficient time to obtain the findings, accurate statistics, and ethical considerations
• vi) Results: Clear and accurate presentation, matching the methodology. Compatibility of the text description with the data in the figures and tables.
• vii) Discussion and conclusion: Results are rationally explained and compared to current findings. Discussion covers the potential further research and applications, and the acquired data support conclusions.
• viii) Tables and figures: Data are clearly and appropriately presented. The presentation of tables and figures is consistent with the description in the text. Clear figure legends and table headings. Figures and tables include measures of uncertainty, such as standard error or confidence intervals, where required and the sample size.
• ix) References: Citation style according to the GMPC instructions, citation of the initial discoveries where suitable, citation of the original paper instead of a review, citation of recent references (within the last 5 years) and relevant, no excessive number of self-citations.
• x) Ethics statements: Reviewers are kindly asked to assess the ethics statements and data availability statements.
• xi) Review articles: Important addition to the study area, emphasize on latest innovations in research, neutral and unbiased review of current studies, understandable for non-expert readers, accurate and explicit interpretations of available research, citation of the most recent or significant references, no gap in knowledge, not overly focused on the own research. Conclusions drawn coherent and supported by the listed citations.
• 5- The reviewer report should contain the following items:
  • i) a summary of the manuscript indicating the objective, significant contributions, and strengths.
  • ii) emphasizing the weakness of the manuscript
  • iii) precise comments, for example, and not limited to the quality, the relevance of the topic, knowledge gap, and the suitability of references. Reviewers should use line numbers, tables, and figures to highlight any required revision. If reviewers realize any unethical practices in publishing, such as plagiarism, data fabrication/data falsification, duplicate submission, undeclared conflict of interests, and defamation/libel, they are kindly asked to raise these concerns to the editor immediately.
• 6- Overall recommendation: Reviewers are kindly asked to send their recommendations to the editor in a period of 2 weeks by one of the following recommendations:
  • i) accept in the present form,
  • ii) accept after minor revisions,
  • iii) reconsider after major revisions, or iv) reject.
• 7- Reviewing the revised manuscript: Reviewers are kindly asked to assess the whole manuscript with particular attention to the following items:
  • i) authors addressed all comments raised by the reviewer,
  • ii) assess any new additions that were not mentioned in first submission,
  • iii) conclusions supported by the acquired data of the revised manuscript