Editorial process of the European Geologist journal
All articles published in the European Geologist journal are peer-reviewed by two members of the Journal’s independent Reviewers’ Board, who are experts in the article’s topic. The Editor-in-Chief, supported by the Editorial Board, decides on the final acceptance or rejection of each article. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the academic quality of the publication process.
A summary of the editorial process is provided here below.
The Editorial Board welcomes article proposals in line with the specific topic agreed on by the EFG Council. The call for articles is published twice a year, in June and December, along with the publication of the previous issue. Deadlines for submitting article proposals (title and content in a few sentences) to the EFG Office (firstname.lastname@example.org) are respectively 15 July and 15 January. The proposals should be in line with the topic of the call. The Editorial Board then evaluates them and notification is given shortly to successful contributors. Deadlines for receipt of full articles are 15 March and 15 September.
After submission, the Editor-in-Chief assesses the suitability of the manuscript to the issue’s topic. Poor manuscripts are rejected. In case of a conflict of interest, the Editor-in-Chief or an Editorial Board Member recommends a reviewer.
The process is single-blind, meaning that the author does not know the identity of the reviewer, but the reviewer knows the author’s identity. At least two review reports are collected for each submitted article.
Since 2021, the European Geologist journal operates an open peer review option, meaning that the authors have the option to publish the review reports and author responses with the published paper (often referred to as open reports). In addition, reviewers may choose to sign their reports if the review is published, in which case the reviewer name appears on the review report (referred to as open identity). The default option is for reviewers to remain anonymous and for reports not to be published. If an article is rejected no details will be published. Open peer review increases the transparency of the review process and provides further information about the paper for interested readers. Therefore, we encourage authors to choose the open review option.
The following checks are applied to all reviewers:
- They shall not hold conflicts of interest with the authors;
- They must perform research or practice in the filed of the submitted paper.
Reviewers are given 10-14 days to write their review. Extensions may be granted on request.
While submitting their paper, authors may recommend potential reviewers. The Editorial Board will check if any conflicts of interest may exist before contacting those reviewers and will not consider those with competing interests. Reviewers are asked to declare any conflicts of interest. Authors may also indicate potential peer reviewers they wish to exclude from the peer review process of their manuscript. The Editorial Board will respect these requests as long as this does not interfere with the objective and thorough assessment of the submission.
Acceptance decisions on manuscripts, after peer review, are made by the Editor-in-Chief, supported by the Editorial Board. The following criteria are applied:
- The suitability of selected reviewers;
- Adequacy of reviewer comments and author response;
- Overall scientific quality of the paper.
The editor can select from: accept, reject, ask the author for revision or ask for an additional reviewer.
If there is any suspicion that a paper may contain plagiarism, the copy editor will verify this by using the Copyleaks software.
Reviewers make recommendations and the Editorial Board is free to disagree with their views. If they do so, they should justify their decision for the benefit of the authors.
EFG staff or Editorial Board members shall not be involved in the processing of their own academic work. Their submissions are assigned to at least one independent outside reviewer. Decisions are made by other Editorial Board members who do not have a conflict of interest with the author.
Articles may or may not be sent to reviewers after author revision, dependent on whether the reviewer requested to see the revised version and the recommendations of the Editor-in-Chief. As a general practice, we allow for a maximum of two rounds of significant revision per manuscript.
Copy editing and layout
After the peer-review stage, the copy editor proceeds with a linguistic review and formatting of the article as required in consultation with the author.
Afterwards, the layout is set up, both for the hard copy and the electronic version of the article.
A final proof is sent to the author before publication.