Guidelines for Reviewers
- Details
- Category: English
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.
General Expectations
The journal uses a closed double-blind 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 reveal any potential conflict of interest they may have with respect to the manuscript or the author(s). All probable personal, professional or financial conflicts of interest should be considered.
Specific Expectations
When preparing the reports, we ask our 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.
Confidentiality
Reviewer(s) are asked not to distribute copies of the manuscript or use results contained in it without the authors' permission. However, they are free to show it to knowledgeable colleagues and to consult them about the review. Suggestions for alternative reviewers are helpful to the editor(s) and would be appreciated.
Technicalities
We ask reviewers to return their reports within the specified deadline or inform the editor(s) as soon as possible if they are not able to do so. Reviewer reports can be submitted directly to the editor(s).