Guidelines for Reviewers

Details

Peer review represents a vital element of maintaining high standards in scholarly publishing. This process could not be managed without the knowledge and experience of contributing specialists. We are very grateful to all our reviewers for the time and effort they spend evaluating manuscripts for Geo-Technical Mechanics journal.

 

General Expectations

According to COPE recommendations (COPE Council. COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers - English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9) the journal uses a closed double-anonymous peer review system (the identities of the author(s) and reviewer(s) are kept hidden). Submitted manuscripts are reviewed by one or more experts. Reviewers are asked to recommend whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised or rejected. Although the journal uses the plagiarism detection system, reviewers should alert the editors if they suspect any issues relating to author misconduct such as plagiarism.

Reviewers are asked to provide detailed, constructive comments that will help both the editor(s) make a decision on the publication and the author(s) to improve their manuscript. They should point out whether the manuscript has serious flaws that preclude its publication, or whether additional experiments should be carried out or additional data should be collected to support the conclusions drawn.

Reviewers are also asked to comment on the language used by the authors – whether it is appropriate (specific terminology) or correct (grammar, spelling). Reviewers should advise if any verification of the language by a native speaker is required prior to publication.

Reviewers invited by the editor(s) of the journal should declare any potential conflict of interest they may have with respect to the manuscript or the author(s). All probable conflicts of interest should be considered.

 

Specific Expectations

When preparing the reports, editor(s) reviewers to consider the following points:

 

Originality and relevance of presented work

Reviewers are asked to comment on the originality and relevance of the work for the scientific community. If the presented research is unoriginal and similar work has been published previously, reviewer(s) should give references.

 

Experimental or/and theoretical approach to the discussed problem(s)

Reviewers are asked to discuss the novelty of theoretical approaches and experimental methods presented in the manuscript.

 

Strengths and weaknesses of the methods used

Reviewers should assess the appropriateness of the methods used. If necessary, technical aspects of the manuscript, such as mathematics, should be commented. They should suggest improvements that will result in the enhancement of the quality of the manuscript.

 

Reliability of the results and validity of the conclusions

Reviewer(s) are requested to comment on the reliability of new methods developed. They should consider whether the conclusion(s) drawn are supported by the data collected.

 

Organization of the manuscript

Reviewer(s) should comment whether the manuscript is easy to read as well as clarity of expression (including title, abstract, diagrams, figures, tables and their captions), communication of ideas, discussion of concepts and context of the work, its length. Reviewer(s) should suggest improvements, if necessary.

 

Discussion of the most relevant literature on the topic

Reviewer(s) should comment on the relevance of literature cited in the manuscript. They should give reference to any important research not mentioned in the paper.

 

Revisions

When revision of the manuscript is suggested, reviewer(s) are asked to recommend which aspects of the work should be improved: better motivation for the research, additional data to confirm conclusions, better organization of the manuscript.

 

Timeliness

Reviewer should agree or decline an invitation to review a manuscript within five working days.

The reviewer(s) are encouraged to complete review (fill in the review form and send it to the editor(s)) within 21 days (15 working days).

If the reviewer feels qualified to judge a particular manuscript, the reviewer should agree to review only if he/she is able to return a review within the proposed time frame.

Reviewer should always inform the journal promptly if circumstances change and reviewer cannot fulfil his/her original agreement or if reviewer requires an extension.

If reviewer cannot review, it is helpful to make suggestions for alternative reviewers if relevant, based on their expertise and without any influence of personal considerations or any intention of the manuscript receiving a specific outcome (either positive or negative).

 

Conducting a review

 

Initial steps

Reviewer should read the manuscript, supplementary data files and ancillary material thoroughly (eg, reviewer guidelines, required ethics and policy statements), getting back to the journal if anything is not clear and requesting any missing or incomplete items reviewer needs.

 

Confidentiality

Reviewer should respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.

Reviewer should not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers reviewer is mentoring), without first obtaining permission from the journal.

The names of any individuals who have helped with the review should be included so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal’s records and can also receive due recognition for their efforts.

 

Transferability of peer review

Publisher does not transfer peer reviews to other journals.

 

Preparing a report

Reviewer should follow journals’ instructions for writing and posting the review.

Reviewer should be objective and constructive in his/her review, providing feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. Reviewer should be specific in his/her critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements, to help editors in their evaluation. Reviewer should be professional and refrain from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations.

 

Appropriate feedback

Editor requires a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. The journal allows reviewers to provide confidential comments to the editor as well as comments to be read by the authors. The journal  asks for a recommendation to accept/revise/reject; any recommendation should be congruent with the comments provided in the review. If reviewer has not reviewed the whole manuscript, reviewer must indicate which aspects of the manuscript he/she has assessed. Comments and recommendations for the editor should be consistent with reviewer’s report for the authors; most feedback should be put in the report that the authors will see. Confidential comments to the editor should not be a place for denigration or false accusation, done in the knowledge that the authors will not see reviewer’s comments.

 

Language and style

Reviewer should not attempt to rewrite a manuscript to his/her own preferred style if it is basically sound and clear; suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, important. Reviewer should be aware of the sensitivities surrounding language issues that are due to the authors writing in a language that is not their first or most proficient language, and phrase the feedback appropriately and with due respect.

 

Suggestions for further work

It is the job of the peer reviewer to comment on the quality and rigour of the work they receive. If the work is not clear because of missing analyses, the reviewer should comment and explain what additional analyses would clarify the work submitted. It is not the job of the reviewer to extend the work beyond its current scope. Reviewer should be clear which (if any) suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.

 

Accountability

Reviewer should prepare the report by himself/herself, unless reviewer has permission from the journal to involve another person. Reviewer should refrain from making unfair negative comments or including unjustified criticisms of any competitors’ work that is mentioned in the manuscript, refrain from suggesting that authors include citations to your (or an associate’s) work merely to increase citation counts or to enhance the visibility of your or your associate’s work; suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons. Reviewer should not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of the review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or author.

If the editor handling a manuscript decides to provide a review of that manuscript himself/herself (if another reviewer could not return a report), the editor should do this transparently and not under the guise of an anonymous additional reviewer.