Consideration of manuscripts of scientific papers submitted to the Editorial board of the scientific journal «Processes in GeoMedia», runs according to the following pattern

  1. Receipt and preliminary review of manuscripts submitted for publication, is performed by the editorial board of the journal. Incoming manuscript is registered with the assignment of unique identifier. On the stage of preliminary examination, relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s scientific scope and adherence to the author guidelines is evaluated (see Authors guidelines).
  2. Manuscripts that do not pass preliminary review, are rejected. The group of authors is informed about the decision and about the possibility to re-submit the manuscript for consideration after resolving technical discrepancies.
  3. After preliminary review manuscripts are up to the reviewing. Reviewer is assigned by the Editor in chief, taking into account the scientific scope of the manuscript.
  4. Reviewer with the required qualification in the manuscript’s subject could be selected from the members of the editorial board, or from the pool of third-party experts.
  5. The review period is 30 days and may be extended at the request of the reviewer, and also at necessity for additional expertise.
  6. The manuscript is sent to reviewer without identifying the author(s) names and contact details.
  7. The reviewer treats the manuscript as confidential material strictly respecting the author’s right to disclose the information contained in the manuscript prior to the publication. Additional experts may be invited by the reviewer only with the permission of the editorial board and also on the condition of confidentiality.
  8. The review should include qualified analysis of the manuscript, objective and reasoned assessment and reasonable conclusion about the possibility of publication. The review shall be in writing and has no special format.
  9. The outcome of the reviewer’s work is the review that contains analysis of the manuscript content and a direct reference to the expediency of publication/rejection of the manuscript.
  10. In special cases, on the reviewer’s recommendation, the editorial board may send the manuscript for further review, including statistical and methodological.
  11. The group of authors of the reviewed manuscript has the possibility to access the review in anonymous mode (without identifying the reviewer name and contact details). The editorial board bringsthe result of the review to the attention of authors anonymously in electronic form.
  12. If the review contains recommendations on significant correction and revision of the manuscript, the editorial board sends the review text to the author(s) with the proposal to consider these recommendations when preparing the new version of the manuscript or arguments to refute (entirely or partially). The modified manuscript is then subjected to the review procedure.
  13. If author and a reviewer have faced unbridgeable conflict concerning the manuscript, the editorial board may send the manuscript to another reviewer.
  14. On occurrence of the conflict of interests alleged by the authors when submitting manuscript or reviewer during the work with the manuscript, the manuscript is sent to another reviewer, the particular decision is made by the editor in chief.
  15. In the case of a negative conclusion of the reviewer the manuscript is subjected to another reviewer with no information about the previous review results. In case of negative result of repeated review copies negative review conclusions are sent to the group of authors with a proposal to revise the article and resubmit it on common grounds.
  16. The manuscript not recommended for publication by reviewer is not accepted to re-reviewing without significant refinement.
  17. The group of authors is informed about the results of reviewing by means of e-mail.
  18. The positive review is not sufficient for the publication of the manuscript. The final decision on publication is up to the editorial board, and in controversial situations – to the editor in chief.
  19. Original reviews are preserved in editorial office for three years.
  20. In event of positive decision on the manuscript publication the editorial board notifies author(s).


In addition to the procedure of preliminary examination and reviewing of the manuscripts, the editorial board is guided by the following provisions:

А) The manuscripts not corresponding to the scientific scope of journal; the manuscripts not adherent to the author guidelines requirements and rejected from refinement by the author(s); the manuscripts, whose authors do not respond to the reasonable reviewer comments and to the editorial board; the manuscripts without the review procedure and with negative feedback from reviewers and editorial board can not be published.

Б) Author or co-author of the manuscript cannot be a reviewer of the particular manuscript, as well as supervisors of candidates for a degree and division collaborators of the author(s).

В) If the editorial board impedes to involve the reviewer with the required qualification in the manuscript’s subject, the editor in chief (or deputy chief editor) addresses to the group of authors a proposal to provide external review. At the discretion of the authors the external review may also be submitted directly during manuscript submission to the editorial board, which, however, does not alter the usual review procedure.

Г) The time interval for the decision on the publication of submitted manuscripts, including the peer review procedure and correspondence with the author(s), should not exceed 6 (six) months.

Д) The order of publication is determined by the timing of the initial submission of materials by the authors. Direct time of issuing the papers is determined by the availability and time required for technical editing. If two (or more) manuscripts are submitted by the same author(s), they are preferably published in various journal volumes.


Download Reviewing rules.