(for details see The procedure for peer-reviewing and publishing
All manuscripts accepted for consideration by the editors of the "Geosystems of Transitional Zones" Journal are peer-reviewed.
The editors have the right to reasonably refuse author the publication before peer-reviewing, based on primary screening: if the material does not fit the scope of the Journal, does not contain the subject of scientific research, does not meet ethical requirements, duplicates published material, is not logically structured, is presented in indigestible language, etc.
The Journal adheres to the policy of double-blind peer-review, which means the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa. A review indicating its author is submitted to the Higher Attestation Commission or to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon a relevant request.
Aside from uniqueness screening using the Antiplagiarism system, all scientific materials are subjected to obligatory review by at least two peer-reviewers. Publication in the form of conference reports does not exclude their reviewing in the established order.
Peer-reviewers are invited well-known experts in this field, who have publications on the subject of the reviewed article, as well as members of the Editorial Board. Editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, and executive secretary select a particular peer-reviewer to examine an article.
The choice of a reviewer is the prerogative of the Editorial Board, but authors can indicate in the cover letter 4-6 potential reviewers of their work (at least from two different regions or different countries; experts in this field; lack of cooperation, including co-authorship over the past three years; non-members of the Editorial Board of the Journal).
The main parameters for the expert assessment of the manuscript are as follows:
• What is the general nature of this material – experimental, theoretical, review work, the result of original scientific research; short report, etc.
• Does the content of the article match its title. Are the goal and objective (s) of the study clearly formulated. Are they reasoned by a literature review.
• Is the construction of the text logical. Does the manuscript contain the structural components necessary for a scientific article: theoretical background: an overview of the current problem; problem statement with an emphasis on novelty; methods and techniques; description of the problem solution, experiment (simulation); discussion of results and conclusions; directions for future research and/or assessment of the contribution of this research to science.
• Are the requirements for the abstract (summary) are met: it is structured, it describes the objectives, methods, results and significance of the study. Is it possible to understand the essence of the study by abstract. Does it correlate with conclusions.
• Are the methods and techniques used by this author in this study correct.
• Do author's conclusions follow from the material presented and do they relate to the title of the article and the objectives of the study.
• Is there any novelty in the scientific results and author's conclusions as compared to those existing in the literature. Whether it is clearly expressed in the article.
• Does the bibliography match the content of the article. Does it contain modern (for the last 5-10 years) publications on the subject of the work.
• Does mathematical and chemical formulas and symbols organically relate to the text. How necessary are they to understand the meaning of the scientific result.
• Does the technical design of the figures match the purpose of the results visual presentation.
• Language and style of presentation (accessible, clear, terminology is correct).
• Other comments and recommendations that allow authors to improve the quality of the submitted work.
The reviewer is notified that the articles submitted for review are the intellectual property of the authors and the information contained in them is confidential prior to its publication in the Journal, as well as the need to declare a conflict of interest, if any.
In case of dissent with the reviewer opinion, the author can contact the Editorial Office with a reasonable request to send his article to another reviewer. In this case, the editorial board of the Journal either sends the article for additional reviewing, or presents the author with a reasonable refusal of publication on the basis of the recommendations of the peer-reviewers.
Works received at least two positive reviews are published.
Positive review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of a manuscript.
The final decision on the publication of an article and its timing is made by the Editorial Board, and in conflict situations – by the Editor-in-Chief (or his Deputy), who has the right to reject the article on serious grounds (conflict of interest, insufficient level of research novelty, etc.) or publish the article as a basis for discussion.
The decision to accept the article for editing or a reasoned refusal is sent to the author no later than three months after the manuscript submission to the Editorial Office.
The final version of the article is agreed with all its authors.
Author's originals of published articles, reviews and editorial opinions remain deposited in the Editorial Office for five years.