Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to GEOCIVIA Journal undergo a rigorous peer-review process. For each submission, the editors appoint a minimum of two independent reviewers, selected based on their subject expertise and the relevance of their research background.

GEOCIVIA Journal applies a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process. Reviewers are strictly prohibited from communicating directly with authors.

---

Initial Review

Upon submission, each manuscript is evaluated by the editor to assess overall quality, relevance to the journal’s scope, originality, scholarly contribution, and plagiarism.
This initial screening process is typically completed within approximately five (5) working days.

---

Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial review are forwarded to at least two reviewers whose expertise aligns with the manuscript’s subject area. The peer-review process follows a double-blind procedure and generally takes four (4) to eight (8) weeks.

---

Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers’ reports and recommendations, the editor may reach one of the following decisions:

• Rejected
  The manuscript is not suitable for publication and may not be resubmitted to GEOCIVIA Journal.

• Resubmit
  Substantial revisions are required. The revised manuscript must undergo a second round of peer review.

• Accepted with Revisions
  The manuscript is conditionally accepted, subject to minor or major revisions. Revised versions are evaluated by the editor prior to final acceptance.

• Accepted
  The manuscript is accepted for publication without further revision.

For manuscripts categorized as Resubmit or Accepted with Revisions, authors are given four (4) weeks to submit the revised manuscript. Failure to return the revision within this timeframe—without prior notification to the editorial board—will result in rejection.

Authors who encounter difficulties and require additional time may request an extension by contacting the editor via email. Extensions are granted at the editor’s discretion upon satisfactory justification.

---

Guidelines for Reviewers

Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review serves to:

• Support editorial decision-making

• Keep reviewers informed of recent developments in their field

• Enable reviewers to contribute professional expertise and judgment to the advancement of scholarly research

---

Becoming a Reviewer

Prospective reviewers are invited to register through the journal’s website by completing the reviewer registration form. All applications are evaluated by the editorial team.

Upon approval, reviewers receive a confirmation email containing login credentials for the Review Management System, reviewer guidelines, and a Reviewer OJS ID, granting access to the journal’s OJS platform.

---

Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Prior to accepting a review request, reviewers are asked to consider the following:

• Ethical Responsibilities
  Reviewers must comply with the journal’s ethical standards for peer review.

• Expertise
  Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript falls within their area of expertise. If not, they should promptly notify the editor and, where possible, suggest alternative reviewers.

• Review Submission Process
  Review comments may be submitted directly on the manuscript, via the OJS review form, or as a separate report to the editor.

• Conflicts of Interest
  Any potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed to the editor prior to conducting the review.

• Time Commitment
  Reviews are expected to be completed within four (4) to eight (8) weeks. If additional time is required, the editor should be informed as early as possible.

The editorial team greatly appreciates the time, effort, and expertise contributed by reviewers.

---

Evaluation Procedure

Reviewer reports serve two primary purposes:

• Assisting editors in making informed editorial decisions

• Providing constructive feedback to help authors improve their manuscripts

Reviewers are encouraged to begin with a brief summary of the manuscript, followed by an overall assessment. Critiques should focus on the content of the work and be presented in a respectful, objective, and professional manner.

---

Key Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to:

• Provide constructive and actionable feedback

• Assess the appropriateness of research methods and procedures

• Evaluate clarity, organization, and quality of presentation

• Identify unclear or ambiguous technical content where applicable

• Offer evidence-based disagreement when necessary

• Report any concerns regarding research integrity to the editor

---

Manuscript Evaluation Checklist

Article Content

• Does the manuscript make a meaningful contribution beyond existing literature?

• Is the work original, comprehensive, and engaging?

• Does it provide value to the scientific and engineering community?

Scope

• Is the manuscript aligned with the aims and scope of the journal?

Title

• Does the title accurately and concisely reflect the content of the study?

Abstract

• Does the abstract clearly summarize the objectives, methods, results, and conclusions?

Introduction

• Does it clearly define the research problem, context, gap, novelty, and objectives?

Methods

• Are the research design, data collection, instruments, and analytical procedures clearly described?

• Is the methodology replicable?

Results

• Are findings presented clearly and logically?

• Are appropriate analytical or statistical methods applied?

• Are tables and figures relevant and properly labeled?

Discussion

• Are interpretations supported by the results?

• Does the discussion engage with relevant literature?

• Are limitations and implications adequately addressed?

Conclusion

• Does the conclusion address the research objectives and suggest directions for future research?

References

• Are references relevant, balanced, and accurately cited?