Manuscripts submitted to Gastroia will be evaluated in 2 basic steps.
Step 1- Preliminary Review (1 week)
Prior to the allocation of manuscripts to peers for external double-blind peer review. In this phase, the head editor and section editor(s) of the journal review each manuscript to see if it meets the basic requirements for articles published in the journal. Those requirements are;
Should be checked that manuscript respects the copyrights of other scholars and avoids any and all plagiarism
Should fit within the scope of the journal;
Should be adequate in terms of their adherence to author guidelines;
have followed the research paper format expected from them.
Manuscripts which do not meet these requirements are not sent out for further review, and their authors will be notified. The internal review may take anywhere approximately 1 week.
Following the internal review, authors are notified by e-mail as to whether their manuscript has been sent out for external review or not--and if not, why not.
The electronic manuscript should be strictly anonymous; authors should not identify themselves in the electronic manuscript itself, or in the filename used for the manuscript.
Step 2-Main Review (1 to 4 months)
Following the internal review, submissions which meet the basic requirements and the bottom-line standards set by Gastroia are sent out for double-blind peer review (by experts in the field) either from the journal's editorial panel or from our larger list of reviewers. Following the external review, the authors are sent copies of the external reviewers' comments and are notified of the decision (accept as is, accept pending changes, revise and resubmit, or reject).
After the external doubly-masked peer review of a manuscript, the corresponding author will receive an email in which corresponded author will be informed of the status of the manuscript.
What if revision is required?
In most cases, after blind review process reviewers recommend that authors revise their manuscripts and send their revisions for further processing. In such cases, authors may want to accept some of the comments and suggestions that have been made by the reviewers, and at the same time refute some others.