Per Review Process

GAT is a blind peer-reviewed journal. Every paper submitted to JGAT for publication is subject to peer review. The peer review in this journal evaluates the submitted paper by individuals of similar competence to the author. It aims to determine the academic paper's suitability for publication. The peer-review method is employed to maintain quality standards and provide credibility to the papers—the peer review at GAT proceeds in 9 steps with the following description.
1. Submission of Paper
The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is carried out via an online system supported by the Open Journal System (OJS). But to facilitate authors, GAT temporarily also accepts paper submissions by email.
2. Editorial Office Assessment
The GAT editor first assesses the submitted paper. The editor checks whether it suits the Journal's focus and scope. The paper's composition and arrangement are evaluated against the journal's Author Guidelines to ensure it includes the required sections and stylizations. In addition, an assessment of the minimum required quality of the paper for publication begins at this step, including one that assesses whether there is a major methodological flaw. Turnitin will check every submitted paper which passes this step to identify any plagiarism before being reviewed by reviewers.
3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief 
The Editor-in-Chief checks if the paper is appropriate for the journal, sufficiently original, engaging, and significant for publication. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.
4. Invitation to Reviewers
The handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be an appropriate reviewer (also known as referees) based on expertise, the closeness of research interest, and no conflict of interest consideration. The peer-review process at GAT involves a community of experts in a narrowly defined field of guidance and counseling and educational psychology who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial reviews.  The impartiality is also maintained by the double-blind peer review employed in this journal. That said, the reviewer does not know the author's identity. Conversely, the author does not know the reviewer's identity.  The paper is sent to reviewers anonymously.
5. Response to Invitations
Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They then decide to accept or decline. In the invitation letter, the editor may ask the potential reviewer to suggest an alternative reviewer when he or she declines to review.
6. Review is Conducted
The reviewers allocate time to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If significant problems are found at this stage, the reviewers may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they will read the paper several times, taking notes to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.
7. Journal Evaluates the Reviews
The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely between both reviewers, the handling editor may invite an additional reviewer to obtain a different opinion before deciding.
8. The Decision is Communicated
The editor sends a decision email to the author, including any relevant reviewer comments. Reviewer comments are sent anonymously to the corresponding author to take the necessary actions and responses. At this point, reviewers are also sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review.
9. Final Steps
If accepted, the paper is sent to copy-editing. Suppose the article is rejected or returned to the author for either major or minor revision. In that case, the handling editor will include constructive reviewer comments to help the author improve the article. The author should make corrections and revise the paper per the reviewers' comments and instructions.
After the revision, the author should resubmit the revised paper to the editor. If the paper was returned for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive the revised version unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested, the handling editor might do this follow-up review. If the editor is happy with the revised paper, it is accepted. The accepted papers will be published online and are freely available as downloadable pdf files.