Skip to main content

Peer review policy

Peer Review Policy

Last updated: 9 July 2026

Peer review is a central part of the editorial and publication process of Global NEST Journal. It supports the quality, reliability, originality and integrity of the scholarly record.

Global NEST Journal publishes original research articles, short papers and critical reviews in the fields of environmental science and technology. All scholarly manuscripts submitted to the Journal are subject to editorial assessment and, where suitable for further consideration, independent peer review.

1. Type of Peer Review

Global NEST Journal operates a peer-review process. This means that the identities of authors are provided to reviewers while the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening before peer review. The Managing Editor, Editor-in-Chief, Co-Editor-in-Chief  or another authorised editorial representative may conduct this screening.

At this stage, the manuscript may be assessed for:

  • relevance to the Journal’s aims and scope;
  • compliance with submission requirements;
  • scientific and technical quality;
  • originality and contribution to the field;
  • language clarity and presentation;
  • ethical compliance;
  • plagiarism or text overlap;
  • appropriate use and disclosure of AI-assisted technologies; and
  • suitability for peer review.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the Journal’s scope, insufficiently developed, ethically problematic, or not compliant with the Journal’s requirements may be rejected at this stage.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to an Associate Editor with relevant expertise to the topic of the paper  who manages the peer-review process and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewers are selected based on their relevant expertise, independence, publication record, previous reviewing experience, availability, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers during submission. Suggested reviewers may be considered by the editorial team, but the Journal is under no obligation to invite them. The final selection of reviewers rests solely with the Journal.

4. Number of Reviewers

Research articles, short papers and critical reviews that proceed to peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise.

Additional reviewers may be invited where the reviewers’ recommendations conflict, where specialist expertise is required, or where the editor considers that further assessment is necessary.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • treat manuscripts and review materials as confidential;
  • provide objective, constructive and evidence-based comments;
  • assess the originality, methodological soundness, validity, clarity and significance of the manuscript;
  • comment on whether data, figures, tables, supplementary materials and references are appropriate and consistent with the manuscript;
  • identify relevant published work that has not been cited, where appropriate;
  • alert the editor to suspected plagiarism, duplicate submission, data manipulation, ethical concerns or other potential misconduct;
  • disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest before accepting a review invitation;
  • decline the invitation if they lack the necessary expertise or cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe; and
  • refrain from using unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal advantage.

Reviewers are normally asked to submit their comments within 21 days of accepting the invitation.

6. Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers, editors and editorial staff must not disclose, share or discuss unpublished manuscripts or review materials with unauthorised individuals.

Reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscripts, review reports or related confidential material to external AI tools or other third-party systems where this may compromise confidentiality, intellectual property or data protection.

7. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must declare any conflict of interest that could reasonably affect, or be perceived to affect, their impartiality.

Conflicts may include, but are not limited to, recent collaboration, direct competition, personal relationships, institutional relationships, financial interests or academic disputes involving the authors or their institutions.

Where a conflict of interest exists, the reviewer or editor must decline involvement or be recused from the manuscript.

8. Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript’s scientific quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, presentation and suitability for the Journal.

Possible decisions may include:

  • accept the paper;
  • request for modification
  • reject the paper.

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or another authorised decision-making editor, taking into account the reviewers’ comments and the recommendation of the Associate Editor.

The Journal is not obliged to follow reviewer recommendations where the editor determines that a different decision is justified.

9. Revisions

Where revision is invited, authors should respond carefully to all reviewer and editorial comments and submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response letter.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, assessed by the handling editor, or sent to additional reviewers where necessary. An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.

10. Supplementary Material

Supplementary material submitted as part of a manuscript may be considered during peer review where it is necessary for the evaluation of the research.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that supplementary files are accurate, relevant, properly cited and compliant with ethical and legal requirements.

11. Special Issues and Guest-Edited Content

Manuscripts submitted to special issues, thematic collections or guest-edited sections are subject to the same peer-review standards, editorial independence and publication ethics requirements as regular submissions.

Guest Editors may coordinate the review process where appropriate, but they must not handle manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest.

The Editor-in-Chief or another designated senior editor retains oversight of the peer-review and editorial decision-making process for special issues.

12. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that a significant factual, procedural or ethical issue affected the decision. Appeals must provide clear reasons and supporting evidence. Mere disagreement with the editorial decision is not sufficient grounds for appeal. Appeals are handled in accordance with the Journal’s Complaints and Appeals Policy.

13. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently of commercial considerations, institutional interests, personal relationships or an author’s ability to pay an Article Processing Charge.

Editors, reviewers and editorial staff are expected to act fairly, objectively and in accordance with the Journal’s Publication Ethics and Research Integrity Policy.

14. Peer Review and Published Content

The Journal clearly distinguishes peer-reviewed scholarly content from non-peer-reviewed editorial, news, announcement or conference-related material, where applicable.

Only content that has completed the applicable editorial and peer-review process is published as peer-reviewed scholarly content.