Peer Review Process

Revija za geografijo­/Journal for Geography follows a double blind peer review policy. Papers submitted to the journal are screened by the editorial team. This includes fact-checking the content, spelling and grammar, writing style, and figures. Those papers judged by the editor to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate (plagiarized papers, are badly or ghost-written, have been published elsewhere, are outside the scope of the journal, or are of little interest to the readers of Revija za geografijo)are desk rejected without external review.  If appropriate, papers are sent to two reviewers who are not disclosed to authors. The review process is conducted by scientists and experts within the specific field addressed in the paper. Finally, in the light of reviewer comments, the editorial team reaches a decision about publication. The Editorial Board may reject the publication of a contribution based on the recommendation of the editor or reviewer. This decision is final. If the reviews do not require any corrections or additions to the article, they are not sent to the article's author.

Research Articles, Reviews, Analysis, Reviews, and Viewpoints are peer-reviewed. All forms of published correction may also be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors. Other contributions are not usually peer-reviewed. 

Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action, but they should bear in mind that the other reviewers of a particular paper may have different technical expertise and/or views, and the editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editors with the information on which a decision should be based. Setting out the arguments for and against publication is often more helpful to the editors than a direct recommendation one way or the other.

Our editors evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by reviewers and by the authors, and may also consider other information not available to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and to the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them, we must weigh the claims of each paper against the many others also under consideration. Reviewers' criticisms are taken seriously, particularly the technical criticisms.