Peer Review Process

Golden Ratio follows a structured editorial and publication process designed to ensure that manuscripts are assessed consistently, reviewed independently, revised appropriately, and prepared for publication according to established academic and editorial standards.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the journal's Online Journal System (OJS). Authors are responsible for ensuring that all required submission information and files are complete and accurate. During submission, authors are required to provide complete and consistent metadata, including:

  • manuscript title;

  • author names and affiliations;

  • corresponding author information;

  • abstract;

  • keywords;

  • references; and

  • other information required by the journal.

Author names should be entered accurately and consistently in the OJS metadata. Authors with a single-word name should use their official or customary form and should not duplicate or artificially modify their name to create a first-name and last-name structure.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that the manuscript complies with the journal's Author Guidelines before submission. Authors are encouraged to use appropriate language-editing or manuscript-preparation resources when necessary to improve the clarity, readability, and presentation of their manuscripts. Such resources are optional and are not a condition for editorial consideration.

References

Authors should use relevant, credible, and academically appropriate sources that directly support the arguments, theoretical framework, methodology, and findings of the manuscript. A manuscript should normally contain at least 25 relevant scholarly references, unless a different requirement applies to a particular article type or research design. Authors are encouraged to provide DOI information for references where a DOI is available. The use of literature indexed in recognized scholarly databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, and other relevant databases, is encouraged where appropriate. However, reference quality is assessed based on relevance, scholarly credibility, recency where appropriate, and contribution to the manuscript rather than database indexing alone. Detailed manuscript preparation requirements are provided in the journal's Author Guidelines.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

Following submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment before external peer review.

The editorial team assesses, as applicable:

  • alignment with the journal's aims and scope;

  • compliance with the journal's submission requirements;

  • academic relevance and basic scholarly quality;

  • clarity and readability;

  • methodological and structural adequacy;

  • originality and potential publication-ethics concerns;

  • completeness of the submitted materials; and

  • other requirements relevant to the article type.

The journal may use similarity-detection software as a supporting screening tool. A 20% similarity score is used as an initial editorial screening reference and does not, by itself, constitute evidence of plagiarism or determine the editorial decision. The nature, sources, location, context, and extent of any identified similarity are considered by the editor.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements or are clearly unsuitable for the journal may be declined without external peer review. Manuscripts that meet the initial requirements may proceed to the next stage of the editorial process.

3. Invoice and Processing Fee

Following successful completion of the initial editorial assessment, Golden Ratio issues an invoice for the applicable processing fee. The applicable fee, payment conditions, and refund provisions are disclosed on the journal's website before submission and payment. Payment of the applicable fee allows the manuscript to proceed to the journal's formal editorial and peer-review processing stage. Payment does not determine the substantive outcome of peer review and does not replace editorial or reviewer assessment.

4. Letter of Acceptance

After payment has been confirmed, Golden Ratio issues a Letter of Acceptance (LOA) through its official editorial system.

The LOA confirms that:

  1. the manuscript has passed the initial editorial assessment;

  2. the applicable processing fee has been received; and

  3. the manuscript has formally entered the journal's editorial and peer-review process.

The LOA represents a formal commitment between Golden Ratio and the author to continue the manuscript through the established editorial and publication process toward the publication schedule communicated by the journal.

Following issuance of the LOA, the manuscript proceeds to peer review and subsequent editorial processing. Authors are expected to remain cooperative throughout the process, respond to reviewer and editor comments, complete required revisions, and ensure that the revised manuscript satisfies the journal's academic, writing, ethical, and publication-quality requirements. Where the required editorial and academic conditions are satisfactorily fulfilled, Golden Ratio will proceed with the manuscript toward publication according to the applicable publication schedule.

The LOA does not override the journal's responsibility to protect research integrity, publication ethics, and the reliability of the scholarly record. Where serious concerns arise concerning research integrity, authorship, originality, ethical conduct, or other matters affecting the reliability of the manuscript, the journal may take appropriate action in accordance with its applicable policies.

5. External Double-Anonymized Peer Review

Manuscripts that proceed to peer review are evaluated through double-anonymized peer review, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another during the review process. Research articles are normally evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject of the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments of the manuscript. Reviewer comments may address, among other matters:

  • originality and contribution;

  • theoretical foundation;

  • literature engagement;

  • research methodology;

  • analysis and interpretation;

  • clarity of presentation;

  • validity of conclusions; and

  • compliance with relevant scholarly and ethical standards.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the appropriate editor. Reviewer identities and confidential review materials are protected in accordance with the journal's peer-review and confidentiality procedures.

6. Editorial Assessment of Reviewer Reports

The editor evaluates the manuscript together with the reviewer reports and any other relevant editorial information.

Possible editorial decisions include:

  • accept;

  • minor revision;

  • major revision; or

  • reject.

Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor assesses the reasoning and evidence provided by each reviewer. When necessary, the editor may request an additional independent review before reaching a decision. The editor is responsible for reaching the final editorial decision and is not required to follow a particular reviewer's recommendation where the available evidence supports a different editorial outcome. Editors must disclose and manage potential conflicts of interest in accordance with the journal's Conflict of Interest Policy.

7. Revision

When revision is required, the manuscript is returned to the author through the OJS system together with the relevant reviewer and editorial comments. Authors are expected to address the comments systematically and provide an appropriate revised manuscript within the timeframe communicated by the journal. Where appropriate, authors should explain how each substantive comment has been addressed. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions. The revision process may involve more than one round when necessary to determine whether the manuscript meets the journal's publication requirements. A manuscript may be rejected at a later stage if the required revisions are not satisfactorily completed or if substantive concerns affecting its publication remain unresolved.

8. Final Editorial Decision

After the required review and revision process has been completed, the responsible editor conducts a final assessment of the manuscript.

The final assessment considers whether:

  • substantive reviewer and editorial comments have been adequately addressed;

  • the manuscript meets the journal's academic and methodological requirements;

  • the revised manuscript is clearly and consistently presented;

  • publication-ethics requirements have been satisfied; and

  • the manuscript is suitable for publication.

Manuscripts that satisfy the applicable requirements proceed to copyediting and production.

9. Copyediting

Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting to improve consistency, clarity, language, formatting, references, and compliance with the journal's publication style. The copyediting process does not alter the substantive scholarly findings or conclusions of the manuscript without appropriate editorial consideration. Additional checks may be conducted during this stage when necessary, including verification of references, metadata, author information, article history, similarity, language quality, and other publication requirements. Authors may be asked to review and approve editorial queries or corrections before the manuscript proceeds to production.

10. Production

After completion of copyediting, the manuscript proceeds to production.

The production process may include:

  • final layout and typesetting;

  • preparation of the article galley;

  • verification of article metadata;

  • DOI assignment and metadata preparation;

  • verification of article history;

  • pagination where applicable; and

  • final quality control.

The production team verifies that the published article and its metadata are consistent with the approved manuscript and the journal's publication records.

11. Publication

Following completion of editorial, copyediting, and production requirements, the article is published online according to the journal's publication schedule. The published article is assigned its final bibliographic and DOI information and becomes part of the journal's permanent scholarly record. Golden Ratio makes appropriate article metadata available through relevant scholarly infrastructure and discovery services. The journal does not guarantee inclusion in any third-party indexing or discovery service whose indexing decisions are outside the journal's control.

12. Publication Schedule

Golden Ratio communicates an estimated publication period or target issue based on the expected progression of the manuscript through the editorial and production process. The publication schedule depends on factors including reviewer availability, editorial assessment, author responsiveness, the completeness and quality of revisions, and completion of production requirements. Authors are therefore expected to cooperate throughout the publication process to support timely completion. Where circumstances cause a significant delay, the journal will provide appropriate information to the author and manage the manuscript in accordance with its applicable editorial policies.

13. Author Responsibilities Throughout the Process

Authors remain responsible for:

  • the accuracy and originality of their manuscript;

  • the integrity of the research and reported findings;

  • appropriate citation and attribution;

  • disclosure of relevant conflicts of interest;

  • compliance with research and publication ethics;

  • responding to reviewer and editor comments;

  • completing required revisions;

  • ensuring that all authors approve the final manuscript; and

  • providing accurate metadata and publication information.

Authors must not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to another journal while it remains under active consideration or processing by Golden Ratio. Any withdrawal must follow the journal's official Manuscript Withdrawal Policy.

14. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly and editorial considerations, including relevance, quality, originality, methodological soundness, research integrity, and suitability for the journal. Payment of a processing fee does not determine the outcome of peer review or override the editorial responsibility to protect the integrity and quality of the journal's published content. Editors and reviewers are expected to manage conflicts of interest and maintain confidentiality throughout the editorial process.

15. Post-Publication Integrity

Following publication, Golden Ratio maintains procedures for addressing substantive concerns about published articles. Depending on the nature and evidence associated with a concern, the journal may issue a correction, publish an Expression of Concern, retract an article, or take another appropriate editorial action in accordance with its publication ethics procedures. All such actions are documented to preserve the transparency, accuracy, and traceability of the scholarly record.