top of page

Peer review policy

Double blind peer review

Double blind peer review

Every abstract/full paper submitted for publication in the GEOLINKS Conference proceedings is double blind peer reviewed. The peer review is made by two members of GEOLINKS Scientific Committee and the Review Board.

Scientists in the review board are reviewing the papers voluntarily. GEOLINKS is currently working with more than 35 scientists from Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, and the Czech Republic, who are reviewing the papers together with the scientist from the Scientific Committee.

Reviewers are appointed once the full article meets the publishing criteria of GEOLINKS. Please check the submission guidelines while preparing your full article. 


  • The article has up to 6 co-authors and every author is affiliated with his institution and country

  • The article has the same abstract submitted in registration and approved previously by the GEOLINKS Scientific Committee. 

  • Keywords are included.

  • The article has Introduction, Methods and Methodology, Results and/or Discussion and Conclusion.  Acknowledgments are written properly after the Conclusion and before the references.

  • All references are fully cited.

  • Self-citation is kept up to 30%.

  • Then the full paper is screened for basic technical requirements and plagiarism.                                    !The publishing team reserves the right to return to authors, without peer review, improperly      formatted manuscripts or non-authorized submissions.

Plagiarism policy

All research papers submitted for publication are checked with plagiarism detection software to verify its originality and find similarity percent of a research paper. The papers failing to satisfy the mentioned criteria are sent back to the author for modification.

If plagiarism is detected in research paper just before publication, the author will be given a chance to resubmit the paper after necessary modification as suggested by the editor. However, if the editor decides plagiarism is a major issue in the research paper, it will not be considered further for publication. 

If plagiarism/fake identity  is suspected or detected in research paper after its publication, the research paper will be removed from website till completion of verification.


Common reasons for rejection

Technical reasons for rejection include incomplete data, poor analysis, using inappropriate statistical tests, weak research motive and/or inaccurate conclusions and more.

Editorial reasons for rejection include out of scope paper, research ethics ignored, lack of proper structure and up-to-date references, difficult to follow logic, poor language quality ( level that cannot be understand by the reader) and more.

Peer review process

Peer review process

Full paper submission by the author 

Authors submit their full papers, prepared in accordance with GEOLINKS Submission guidelines and the publishing criteria written above.

Reviewers of the manuscript are being assigned

Authors of the paper are getting removed 

Evaluation submission

Submission of the paper for evaluation to the assigned two members of the GEOLINKS Review board and Scientific Committee. Their identity is kept anonymous (for the purpose of anonymous evaluation), except for those, who are willing to disclose their identity

Reviewers are commenting on the structure and quality of the paper, focusing on: 

  • Is the article making an academic contribution, is the paper enriching the thematic content of the conference;

  • Do the article contain scientific results? Are there gaps in the full paper;

  • Is the data presented in a way that is consistent, are the tables and figures legible, relevant and integrated into the study;

  • Is the language used appropriate for scientific publication;

  • Was the way in which the research was conducted the best way to answer the relevant questions?;

  • Are the methods used clear and easy to follow, can they be replicated if needed;

  • Does the article have empirical research and whether the theoretical-conceptual discussions of the topic are up-to-date

  • Are the conclusion supported by the results of the study; Is the conclusion written in an impactful way?;


Additional evaluation

The GEOLINKS editorial office decides if review from additional experts is needed or the review report is sufficient for a decision. Suggested reviewers by the author are also acceptable by e-mail to GEOLINKS Publishing department.

Paper acceptance

After a positive evaluation of the submitted full paper, the manuscript goes for pre-print and inclusion in the GEOLINKS Conference proceedings

bottom of page