Peer review policy
Double blind peer review
Every full paper submitted for publication in the GEOLINKS Conference proceedings is double blind peer reviewed. The peer review is made by two people from the 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. Before submission for review the publishing team of GEOLINKS verifies that the article meets the publishing criteria:
The article has up to 5 coauthors 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 full paper is screened for basic technical requirements. ! The publishing team reserves the right to return to authors, without peer review, improperly formatted manuscripts or non-authorized submissions.
The article has Introduction, Methods and Methodology, Results and/or Discussion and Conclusion.
All references are fully cited.
Self-citation is kept up to 30%.
Acknowledgment is written properly after the Conclusion and before the references.
Peer review process
Full paper submission by the author
Authors submit their full papers, prepared in accordance with GEOLINKS Submission guidelines
Reviewers of the manuscript are being assigned
Authors of the paper are getting removed
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:
if the article makes an academic contribution
whether there are gaps in the full paper
the empirical research or the secondary data and whether the theoretical-conceptual discussions of the topic are up-to-date
The reviewers must evaluate if the paper has vital and full conclusions based on the Data and the results in the report
The 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.
After a positive evaluation of the submitted full paper, the manuscript goes for pre-print and inclusion in the GEOLINKS Conference proceedings