Peer Review Process
General Principles
Nova Geodesia is committed to a rigorous, fair, confidential, independent, and constructive peer-review process.
The journal uses a double-blind peer-review model for Research Articles, Review Articles, and Notes. The identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another during the review process.
Reviewers provide independent expert assessments and recommendations. They do not make editorial decisions.
The Editor-in-Chief has overall responsibility for the editorial process and makes all final decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts.
Section Editors or other assigned editors may coordinate manuscript evaluation, select reviewers, assess review reports, communicate with authors and reviewers, and submit reasoned recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief.
Preliminary Editorial Assessment
All manuscripts must normally be submitted through the journal’s online submission system.
Each submission undergoes a preliminary editorial assessment before external peer review. The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor evaluates whether the manuscript:
- falls within the journal’s Focus and Scope;
- presents sufficient originality and scientific relevance;
- is methodologically suitable for evaluation;
- complies with the Author Guidelines;
- includes the required files and metadata;
- meets the journal’s ethical and research-integrity requirements;
- is written and organized clearly enough to permit reliable scientific assessment.
A manuscript may be rejected before external peer review when it is outside the journal’s scope, scientifically unsuitable, insufficiently original, methodologically inadequate, ethically problematic, seriously incomplete, or presented in a form that prevents proper evaluation.
Authors may be invited to correct technical or formal deficiencies before further consideration. Such an invitation does not guarantee external peer review or acceptance.
Anonymization
Authors submit a complete manuscript containing author names, affiliations, contact details, ORCID identifiers, and all required declarations.
Before external peer review, the Editorial Office prepares or verifies an anonymized review copy and removes identifying information from the manuscript and file properties, where necessary.
Authors may be contacted when additional changes are required to ensure appropriate anonymization.
Contributions Subject to Peer Review
The following contribution types are subject to external peer review:
- Research Articles;
- Review Articles;
- Notes.
Editorials are evaluated editorially and do not normally undergo external peer review. Where an Editorial presents original research data or substantive scientific claims, external review may be arranged when appropriate.
The type of each published contribution is clearly identified.
Selection of Reviewers
Manuscripts considered suitable for external evaluation are normally sent to at least two independent experts with relevant subject knowledge.
The journal seeks to obtain two or more substantive review reports whenever possible.
Additional reviewers may be invited when:
- the reports received are incomplete or insufficient;
- the reviewers provide substantially different assessments;
- specialist methodological, statistical, ethical, technical, or interdisciplinary expertise is required;
- further independent assessment is necessary to support a well-founded editorial decision.
Reviewers are selected according to:
- expertise relevant to the manuscript;
- scientific and professional experience;
- independence from the authors and the research;
- absence of relevant conflicts of interest;
- ability to provide an objective, constructive, and timely assessment.
Reviewer suggestions made by authors may be considered, but the journal is not required to use them. Fabricated reviewer identities, false contact information, or attempts to manipulate reviewer selection constitute serious publication misconduct.
Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting an invitation.
A conflict may arise from:
- recent or ongoing collaboration with the authors;
- a shared institutional affiliation;
- close personal or professional relationships;
- direct academic competition;
- financial or intellectual-property interests;
- involvement in the research or manuscript;
- any other circumstance that could reasonably affect impartiality.
A reviewer who cannot provide an independent and objective assessment must decline the invitation.
Editors must also withdraw from handling manuscripts when a relevant conflict of interest exists. The manuscript is then reassigned to another qualified and independent editor.
Confidentiality
Submitted manuscripts, supplementary materials, review reports, editorial correspondence, and related information are confidential.
Reviewers and editors must not:
- share the manuscript or its contents with unauthorized persons;
- disclose confidential information obtained during evaluation;
- use unpublished information for personal research or professional advantage;
- discuss the manuscript outside the authorized editorial process;
- upload confidential manuscripts or editorial materials to unauthorized external generative AI systems or other third-party platforms.
A reviewer may consult another specialist only with prior permission from the assigned editor. Any person contributing to the review must be identified to the journal and must comply with the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements.
Review Criteria
Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript in relation to the following criteria, as applicable:
- relevance to the journal’s scope;
- originality and scientific contribution;
- clarity of the research objectives or hypotheses;
- adequacy of the study design and methodology;
- quality and reproducibility of the methods;
- appropriateness of statistical and analytical procedures;
- reliability and transparency of the data;
- validity of the interpretation and conclusions;
- quality and relevance of the references;
- clarity and organization of the manuscript;
- quality of tables, figures, maps, and supplementary materials;
- compliance with ethical and reporting requirements.
Reviewers should distinguish clearly between:
- major scientific concerns;
- required revisions;
- optional suggestions.
Reviewer Reports
Reviewer reports should be objective, constructive, specific, and supported by clear scientific reasoning.
Reviewers are expected to:
- provide an overall assessment of the manuscript;
- identify its principal strengths and weaknesses;
- explain methodological, analytical, interpretative, or ethical concerns;
- assess whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence;
- recommend realistic and scientifically justified improvements;
- identify relevant literature that may have been overlooked;
- alert the editor to possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, data or image manipulation, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other ethical concerns;
- avoid personal criticism, offensive language, unsupported accusations, or irrelevant citation requests.
The journal may disregard review reports that are superficial, inappropriate, disrespectful, irrelevant, or inconsistent with accepted standards of scholarly review.
Reviewers may provide:
- comments for the authors and editor;
- confidential comments for the editor;
- an overall recommendation through the OJS platform;
- an annotated manuscript or completed review form, where appropriate.
Regardless of format, the report must be sufficiently clear and reasoned to support editorial assessment and assist the authors in improving the manuscript.
Reviewer Recommendation Options in OJS
Reviewers submit one of the recommendation options available in the Open Journal Systems platform:
- Accept Submission
The reviewer considers the manuscript suitable for publication in its current form or after only minor technical adjustments. - Revisions Required
The reviewer considers that the manuscript may become suitable for publication after the authors address the concerns identified in the report. - Resubmit for Review
The reviewer considers that substantial revision is required and that the revised manuscript should undergo another round of evaluation. - Resubmit Elsewhere
The reviewer considers that the manuscript may be more suitable for another journal or publication venue. - Decline Submission
The reviewer considers that the manuscript should not be accepted for publication in Nova Geodesia. - See Comments
The reviewer’s overall assessment or preferred course of action is explained in the written report rather than represented adequately by another recommendation category.
These recommendations are advisory. They do not constitute editorial decisions and do not bind the Editor-in-Chief.
Editorial Assessment and Decision-Making
After considering the manuscript, review reports, authors’ responses, and the journal’s scientific and ethical requirements, the assigned editor prepares an editorial assessment and recommendation.
Section Editors or other assigned editors may:
- coordinate the review process;
- invite additional reviewers;
- request clarification or supporting information;
- communicate revision requests and other procedural correspondence, where authorized;
- assess revised manuscripts;
- submit a reasoned recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.
The Editor-in-Chief considers:
- the manuscript;
- the reviewers’ reports and recommendations;
- the authors’ responses and revisions;
- the assessment of the assigned editor;
- the journal’s scientific, editorial, ethical, and legal requirements.
The Editor-in-Chief has overall responsibility for the editorial process and makes all final decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts.
Possible editorial outcomes are:
- acceptance;
- request for revisions;
- invitation to resubmit for further review;
- rejection.
Reviewers do not accept or reject manuscripts. Their role is to provide independent expert advice.
A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance.
Revision and Further Review
When revision is requested, authors must normally submit:
- a revised manuscript;
- a detailed point-by-point response to the reviewers and editors;
- a marked or tracked-changes version, where requested;
- updated supplementary files and declarations, where applicable.
Authors should explain clearly how every comment was addressed and provide a reasoned scientific justification when a recommendation was not followed.
Revised manuscripts may be:
- returned to the original reviewers;
- sent to new reviewers;
- assessed by the assigned editor;
- evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief;
- examined by an additional specialist where necessary.
The approach depends on the nature and extent of the revisions and on whether further independent assessment is required.
The journal seeks to avoid unnecessary review rounds while ensuring that important scientific and ethical concerns are adequately resolved.
Appeals
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that it resulted from:
- a significant factual error;
- a substantive misunderstanding of the manuscript;
- a procedural irregularity;
- an undisclosed conflict of interest;
- a demonstrably incorrect interpretation of relevant evidence.
An appeal must be reasoned, specific, and supported by relevant information. Disagreement with the scientific judgment of reviewers or editors alone is not sufficient grounds for appeal.
Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief. Where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, the appeal is assigned to an independent senior editor or suitably qualified Editorial Board member who was not involved in the original decision.
Ethical Concerns Identified during Peer Review
Concerns identified during peer review are handled confidentially and in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics policy.
Such concerns may include:
- plagiarism or duplicate publication;
- fabrication or falsification of data;
- inappropriate image manipulation;
- unethical research;
- missing ethical approval or informed consent;
- inappropriate authorship;
- undisclosed conflicts of interest;
- fabricated reviewer identities;
- manipulation of peer review;
- citation manipulation;
- inappropriate or undisclosed use of generative AI.
The journal may request explanations, original data, images, approvals, permits, or other supporting documentation.
The editorial process may be suspended while the concern is assessed. Depending on the outcome, the journal may continue the review, request clarification or correction, reject the manuscript, withdraw an acceptance decision, or take other action consistent with the Publication Ethics policy.
Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members
Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, Section Editors, other editors, Editorial Board members, or persons closely associated with the journal are subject to the same scientific and ethical standards as all other submissions.
The author-editor is excluded from the evaluation and decision-making process.
The manuscript is assigned to an independent editor who has no relevant conflict of interest.
Where the Editor-in-Chief is an author, the manuscript is handled by an independent senior editor or suitably qualified Editorial Board member. The Editor-in-Chief has no access to or involvement in the review and decision-making process for that manuscript.
Post-Acceptance Procedures
After acceptance, the manuscript enters copyediting, formatting, proofreading, metadata preparation, and technical production.
Authors receive a final proof for verification. At this stage, corrections should normally be limited to typographical, formatting, metadata, or minor factual errors.
Substantive changes to data, analysis, authorship, interpretation, conclusions, or other scientific content require editorial approval and may result in renewed scientific or ethical evaluation.
Editorial Workflow
- Manuscript Submission;
- Preliminary Editorial Assessment;
- Anonymization;
- Assignment to a qualified editor, where appropriate;
- Reviewer Selection and Invitation;
- Double-Blind External Peer Review;
- Reviewer Reports and Recommendations;
- Editorial Assessment;
- Editorial Decision by the Editor-in-Chief;
- Revision and Author Response, where required;
- Further Review or Editorial Reassessment, where necessary;
- Final Decision by the Editor-in-Chief;
- Copyediting, Proofreading, and Production;
- Publication.
Related Policies
- Procedures
- Publication Ethics
- Transparency and Best Practices
- Use of Generative AI
- Author Guidelines
- Section Policies
