Our peer-review process proceeds as follows:
Original submission & cover letter
The authors may submit their manuscript and any related materials via the designated manuscript submission system, following the format guidelines (see Manuscript submission guidelines above).
The submission should be accompanied by a cover letter containing a brief summary and motivation of the work and including any particular requests from the authors to the editorial team. Authors are also invited to suggest a maximum of 3 names of the Editorial Team as handling editors.
Upon submission, authors are required to accept the Author Agreement and declare originality of the manuscript, sole ownership of copyright by the author(s), that the manuscript is not submitted to another journal, and that all co-authors agree with the submission and the author order. Author contributions should be listed according to the CRediT system.
All requests pertaining to the manuscript handling process (peer review style, suggested reviewers, etc.) should be made at the submission stage. In the absence of any specific requests the Editorial Team will manage the submitted manuscript according to the default options indicated below. The Editorial Team will consider all requests, and will let the authors know if they are not able to accommodate particular requests.
Assignment of a handling editor and secondary editors
Upon submission of a manuscript, all editors get a notification of submission. All editors (with preference given to the editors selected by the authors) then have 3 working days to self-assign the manuscript as handling editor. Any editor can volunteer to be the handling editor or propose other editors who might have the technical knowledge required to judge the manuscript at this stage.
If no editor has volunteered to handle a manuscript within 3 working days, the two editors on monitoring duty are responsible for assigning an editor to handle the manuscript. Using this process, a handling editor with expertise on the manuscript topic should be assigned within 10 working days after manuscript submission.
To assist the handling editor, two secondary editors are assigned to the manuscript from the secondary editor duty list, which lists editors in reverse chronological order in terms of their previous editorial tasks (i.e., an editor who has not recently been a secondary editor on a manuscript is the first person to be assigned secondary editor on a manuscript). Exceptions to this order are made in case of a) unavailability; b) if they are the current handling editor; c) if multiple editors volunteered to handle the manuscript. In the latter case, all volunteering editors who are not the handling editor are automatically assigned as secondary editors.
Pre-review screening
Our standard for deciding whether to handle a manuscript is rooted in the sustainability of our collective efforts. Specifically, the time and effort of our team (including reviewers) is precious and must be respected to ensure the journal’s long-term sustainability. Editors will only send papers for review after agreeing that the submitted manuscript is clear, topical, original, of interest to our readership, and worthy of the effort that we request from our editors and reviewers. Therefore, we may return manuscripts without requesting the assessment of external reviewers if the manuscript does not meet these criteria. Our decision will be justified to the authors.
Assignment of reviewers
A minimum of two solicited reviewers will be assigned by the handling editor to examine each manuscript, chosen from experts in the subject area who are among the target audience of the manuscript. In the cover letter accompanying the submission, authors may suggest potential reviewers, and also persons they do not wish to review the manuscript. However, in making these suggestions the authors are encouraged to include a justification for these suggestions, and to state any conflicts of interest. We cannot guarantee that these suggestions will be followed by the handling editor, who will make an independent judgement regarding the final assignment of solicited reviewers. Depending on the peer-review option chosen by the authors, solicited reviewers may choose whether or not to remain anonymous.
Review process
Concerning anonymity, Geodynamica offers three peer-review options: Open Peer Review, Double Blind Peer Review, and Reviewer Discretion (default, see section on Anonymity of Authors and Reviewers for more details). The purpose of peer review is to improve the scientific dialogue in a constructive spirit, to more clearly convey ideas and results accurately, thereby enhancing the general impact of the science. Reviewers are asked to assess the positive aspects of each manuscript, check for errors (logical, mathematical, analytical, conceptual, etc.), and where applicable to suggest ways to improve the presentation, citations, explication, conceptualization, robustness, and impact of the study. The handling editor will ask reviewers to offer a recommendation regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication, and to clearly outline any issues they believe need to be addressed if it requires further work and/or revision. Any abusive and inappropriate language by the reviewers and/or the authors during the peer-review process will not be tolerated. The handling editor may request reviewers/authors to revise their review/rebuttal. The handling editor may decide to reject a review if they deem the language used inappropriate. The handling editor may decide to reject a manuscript if the authors’ rebuttal is inappropriately formulated.
Editor decision
Based on the reviews and their own assessment of the manuscript, the handling editor and two secondary editors jointly decide whether to (1) recommend publication of the manuscript in its present form, (2) solicit a revision from the authors outlining the particular aspects that require improvement, or (3) reject the manuscript. In case (2) the editor will set a timeline for submission of a revised version of the manuscript. If the revision is not received by the deadline, or an extended deadline is not requested by the authors, the manuscript will revert to case (3).
In exceptional cases, the editorial team can be consulted for decisions on the manuscript.
After acceptance, the submitted materials will be sent to the technical team to prepare the final manuscript for publication.
Production
The authors are expected to have followed the technical guidelines to help our volunteer team tackle the required formatting work, and respond to any queries or requests in a timely manner to ensure that the publication will not be delayed.
Postproduction
- Publication: The published manuscript will be listed and made available for download on the journal website. Solicited peer reviews will be published on the journal website along with the manuscript, with credit to the reviewers unless they decide to remain anonymous.
- Withdrawal: The authors will have an opportunity to withdraw their manuscript at any time during the review process. After withdrawal, Geodynamica will cease all work related to the manuscript. A copy of the submitted files may be kept only for our internal records and to satisfy any legal requirements.
- Retraction: The retraction of a publication may occur at the request of authors or editors in case significant problems are discovered. In this event, the publication will remain accessible online and clearly marked as “RETRACTED”.
Anonymity of Authors and Reviewers
Authors may choose one of the following peer-review options:
- Open Peer Review: Throughout the peer-review process the identity of the authors is revealed to the reviewers, and the identity of the reviewers is revealed to the authors. Nobody remains anonymous.
- Double-Blind Peer Review: The identity of the authors and the identity of the reviewers remain unknown during the peer review process. If the paper is accepted after peer review, the identity of the author(s) will be published and reviewers will retain the option to remain anonymous.
- Reviewer Discretion (Default): The identity of the author(s) is revealed to the reviewers during the peer-review process. Reviewers remain anonymous by default, unless they choose to reveal their identity by signing their name under their review.
Note that the open peer review and double-blind peer review options may limit the pool of available reviewers and increase the effort required by the handling editor. This may increase the length of time the manuscript spends in peer review.
After acceptance Geodynamica offers the following options with regards to reviewer and author anonymity:
- Reviewers: All reviews are published along with the manuscript after acceptance. We encourage all reviewers to identify themselves at this stage. However, unless the paper has been handled under the Open Peer Review option, the reviewers will remain anonymous by default, and will only be identified if they sign their review comments to the authors. It is the reviewers’ responsibility to ensure that their remarks do not reveal their identity if they wish to remain anonymous.
- Authors: The identity of the authors will be revealed after the manuscript has been accepted. Exceptions to this policy should be directed to the editorial team.
Geodynamica will do its best to honor any requests for anonymity from authors and reviewers. However, we cannot guarantee strict anonymity will be maintained, and there may be cases in which Geodynamica is not able to ensure or to honor such requests owing to legal or other reasons.