Being a reviewer is a mark of distinction and individual accomplishment. One of the advantages of reviewing is the early chance to read and assess the most recent research in your field. You could also be able to reference your journal articles as professional service contributions. An eligible reviewer of Gnosi Journal is a recognised expert in a particular scientific field of interest to the journal, with a strong publication history, working in an academic or research institution, or as an independent researcher, who accepts Gnosi Journal standards, instructions for reviewers, and publication ethics, works promptly and accurately under firm deadline, speaks English or French fluently, and actively uses the internet.

Benefits to Reviewers

  1. Reviewing opens doors to extraordinary chances. Professional review services will improve your awareness of professional standards and help you acquire the respect of your colleagues more rapidly.
  2. The second possible benefit of becoming a reviewer is that you will be given preference for membership on the editorial board.

Reviewer Selection

We choose reviewers for a given article based on a variety of characteristics, such as experience, reputation, specific author recommendations, etc. Issue by issue, the reviewers of the papers will be noted. As part of our editing process, we routinely consult with prospective reviewers before giving them articles to evaluate. Even if these earliest communications or discussions include sensitive information, reviewers should be mindful. Reviewers invited by the editors must disclose any possible conflicts of interest regarding the paper or its authors. Consider all possible personal, professional, and financial conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are essential to the publication process, and as a reviewer, you will gain significant expertise in scientific publishing. If you are interested in reviewing for Gnosi Journal, please send us an email at

Please remember to include your CV and list of publications in the application email. The editors of the journal will notify you after your application has been accepted.

Regarding reviewers, the editors maintain the right to make the ultimate decision.

Ensuring a Double Blind Peer Review

Gnosi Journal uses  double  Blind Preer Rview process. Double-blind peer review means the identity of both the author and reviewer is kept hidden. If the authors' identity is unknown to the reviewer, it will prevent the reviewer from forming any bias. To protect the integrity of the double blind peer-review process for submissions to this journal, every effort must be made to conceal the authors' and reviewers' identities. This means that the authors, editors, and reviewers who submit documents as part of the review process have to look at the content and file attributes for:

  1. The writers of the work have removed their names from the body of the text and replaced them with "Author" and the year in the references and footnotes.
  2. The information about the author should also be taken out of the file properties for Microsoft Office documents.

For Microsoft 2003 and previous versions, and Macintosh versions of Word:
Under the File menu select: Save As > Tools (or Options with a Mac) > Security > Remove personal information from file properties on save > Save.

For MacIntosh Word 2008 (and future versions)
- Under the File menu select "Properties".
- Under the Summary tab remove all of the identifying information from all of the fields.
- Save the File.

For Microsoft 2007 (Windows):
- Click on the office button in the upper-left hand corner of the office application.
- Select "Prepare" from the menu options.
- Select "Properties" for the "Prepare" menu options.
- Delete all of the information in the document property fields that appear under the main menu options.
- Save the document and close the document property field section.

For Microsoft 2010 (Windows):
- Under the File menu select "Prepare for sharing".
- Click on the "Check for issues" icon.
- Click on "inspect document" icon.
- Uncheck all of the checkboxes except "Document Properties and Personal information".
- Run the document inspector, which will then do a search of the document properties and indicated if any document property fields contain any information.
- If the document inspector finds that some of the document properties contain information it will notify you and give you the option to "Remove all", which you will click to remove the document properties and personal information from the document.

For PDF files:
With PDFs, the authors' names should also be removed from Document Properties found under File on Adobe Acrobat's main menu.

Publication Criteria

Articles must reflect a considerable development in the specific subject within the journal's coverage, as measured by:

  1. Originality (in an empirical or theoretical sense)
  2. Relevance for field investigators
  3. There is interest from readers and scholars.

Peer-Review Process

  1. After receiving the paper, a confirmation email will be issued to the relevant author.
  2. Articles are subject to an initial editorial screening and anonymous peer review by two editor-selected reviewers. The submitted papers will first undergo a preliminary editorial assessment. After this first step, it will be sent to the peer reviewers for evaluation. Our journal employs a closed peer-review method, which means that reviewers do not have access to author information and remain anonymous to the author.
  3. The journal editors retain the right to return improperly prepared manuscripts to the authors without peer review.
  4. The journal's editorial office does not preserve electronic items that were not approved for publication and do not return them to the authors.
  5. At the request of the authors or the Gnosi Journal Editorial Board, the originals of reviews are kept at the editorial office for one year, after which they are destroyed.
  6. All papers will be reviewed for plagiarism before being delivered to the reviewers. The journal uses the plagiarism detection software Plagiarism Checker X. However, reviewers should also notify the editors if they suspect any author misbehaviour, such as plagiarism.
  7. All papers are appraised based on the suggestions of the reviewers.

There are numerous sorts of available choices:

  1. Accept the article in its current form.
  2. Accept with minimal alterations;
  3. Accept it with substantial alterations; and
  4. Reject the article since it does not meet the publication's requirements.

Within three weeks after the original submission, the corresponding author will be notified via email whether the paper has been accepted or rejected. If not, he will get two anonymous reviewers' suggestions for modifications to be made before the article is eventually authorised and published.


The amended paper is due one week after the first response.

The editor-in-chief makes the ultimate decision about publishing in consultation with associate editors and IEC members (who are specialists in the article's subject), taking the reviewers' suggestions into account. Together with any relevant justification, this judgment will be sent to the applicable author.

After an article has been accepted for publication, it is processed and typeset in accordance with the journal's design guidelines. The corresponding author is then emailed an acceptance letter and a payment method, and the accepted article is published on the journal's website alongside the other articles in the issue.


Differences of opinion between reviewers

When reviewers have divergent opinions, the editor-in-chief, in conjunction with associate editors, evaluates all comments and concludes based on a balance of all remarks. The reviewer should supply as much information as possible to the editor-in-chief and associate editors to aid in this process. A review that elucidates both arguments for and against publishing is consequently of equal or greater worth than one that provides a straight recommendation.

If reviewers seem to have fundamental disagreements, the editor-in-chief, in conjunction with associate editors, may decide to share all the reviews with each reviewer to elicit further remarks that may assist the editor-in-chief and associate editors in concluding. The editor-in-chief and associate editors then evaluate the suggestions and comments of the reviewers with those of the authors and any other information that may not have been made accessible to the reviewers.

Where the article has been altered in response to reviewer comments or when the authors believe their position has been misrepresented during the review, we request further reviewer comments on the amended or challenged article. We suggest that reviewers be accessible to give such follow-up feedback.

Expectations Post Review
(in compliance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers)

Peer-reviewers should:

  • Please continue to keep details of the article and its review confidential.
  • Respond promptly if contacted by a journal about matters related to their review of an article and provide the information required.
  • Contact the journal if anything relevant comes to light after they have submitted their review that might affect their original feedback and recommendations.
  • Try to accommodate requests from Gnosi journal to review revisions or resubmissions of articles they have reviewed.


We appreciate all our reviewers' time and effort in evaluating articles for Gnosi: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Human Theory and Praxis.