Peer Review Process

Nova Geodesia is committed to a rigorous and transparent peer review process, ensuring the quality, originality, and integrity of published research. The journal operates a double-blind peer review system: authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process.

1. Preliminary Editorial Evaluation

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Section Editor. This stage includes:

  • verification of the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope;

  • compliance with the Author Guidelines and submission format;

  • adherence to ethical standards (COPE, ICMJE, CONSORT, DOAJ, OASPA, WAME principles);

  • plagiarism screening using similarity detection software;

  • checking for completeness of metadata, figures, and tables.

2. Reasons for Editorial Rejection at the Preliminary Stage

A submission may be rejected without peer review if it:

  • falls outside the journal’s scope;

  • does not comply with formatting or submission guidelines;

  • contains plagiarism or significant overlap with previously published work;

  • shows methodological flaws that cannot be addressed through revision;

  • lacks sufficient originality or scientific contribution;

  • is written in unclear or poor English that prevents scientific evaluation.

3. Reviewer Selection

  • Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest.

  • Each manuscript is typically assigned to at least two independent reviewers.

  • Reviewers receive the title, abstract, and relevant details before accepting the invitation.

  • Acceptance to review implies a commitment to submit a report within the agreed deadline.

4. The Review Process

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • Originality and significance of the research;

  • Soundness of methodology and data analysis;

  • Clarity of presentation and logical structure;

  • Relevance and adequacy of references;

  • Compliance with ethical standards in research and publication.

Reviewers provide:

  1. Comments to the author(s) – constructive feedback for improving the manuscript.

  2. Confidential comments to the editor – including any concerns regarding ethics, novelty, or potential misconduct.

  3. A clear recommendation (see Section 5 below).

4.1 Review Submission Options

After accepting the invitation to review, reviewers can download the manuscript (available in Word format) from the journal’s platform in Step 3: Download & Review. The evaluation of manuscripts can be done in any manner the reviewers consider appropriate. The following models are provided as examples and may be used if preferred:

        • Option 1: Reviewers may analyze the manuscript and then write or paste their comments into the Review text box in Step 3. To proceed, click "Continue to Step #3" at the bottom of the page. In Step 3, there are two text fields: “For author and editor” – where the reviewer presents the report (without including their name); “For editor only” – where the reviewer can share confidential comments intended exclusively for the editor, which will not be visible to the authors.
        • Option 2: Analyze the manuscript and insert corrections, suggestions, or comments directly into the document using Track Changes in Word.
        • Option 3: Analyze the manuscript and insert your comments into the ‘Journal Review Form’. This form can be downloaded as a Word file (.docx). It may be completed in full or partially (e.g., only the summary table, suggestions for improvement, etc.), depending on the reviewer's preferred reviewing style.
        • Option 4: Combine Option 2 and Option 3 – use Track Changes directly on the manuscript and also complete the Journal Review Form. Both documents can be uploaded via the Reviewer Files section in Step 3: Download & Review. You may also use the Review Discussions tab for any additional remarks or clarifications.

Reviewers may evaluate the submission in any format or style they prefer, including, but not limited to, the options suggested above. They are encouraged to choose the reviewing method they find most convenient, clear, and effective, both for themselves and for the benefit of the authors. The journal fully supports flexibility in the review process, as long as the feedback provided is constructive, relevant, and well-structured.

5. Possible Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor may decide to:

  1. Accept – The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.

  2. Accept with Minor Revisions – The manuscript requires minor changes that do not affect the overall conclusions.

  3. Accept with Major Revisions – Substantial changes are needed; the revised manuscript may be re-evaluated by the same reviewers.

  4. Invite Re-submission for a New Review after Major Revisions – The paper requires significant improvement and will undergo a new round of peer review.

  5. Reject – The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards for publication.

6. Revision Stage

  • Authors must submit a detailed Response to Reviewers document, addressing each comment point-by-point.

  • All changes in the manuscript should be highlighted or tracked for clarity.

  • Failure to submit the revision within the deadline may result in withdrawal from consideration.

7. Final Decision and Proofs

  • After acceptance, the manuscript enters copyediting and proofreading.

  • Only minor corrections are allowed at this stage; substantive changes require editorial approval.

  • Final proofs must be approved by the authors before publication.

8. Integrity of the Peer Review Process

Nova Geodesia strictly prohibits:

  • suggesting fabricated reviewer identities;

  • submitting fake review reports;

  • attempting to influence reviewers or editors inappropriately.

Any suspected misconduct is investigated according to COPE guidelines and may result in rejection or retraction.

9. Peer Review Workflow Diagram

1. Submission → 2. Preliminary Editorial Evaluation → 3. Reviewer Assignment → 4. Double-Blind Peer Review → 5. Review Reports → 6. Editorial Decision → 7. Revision (if required) → 8. Final Decision → 9. Publication

10. OJS Editorial and Publishing Process

The editorial and publishing workflow of Nova Geodesia is supported by the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, an open-source software developed by the Public Knowledge Project (PKP) to promote open access publishing worldwide.

The following diagram, reproduced courtesy of PKP, illustrates the full editorial process from submission to publication as implemented in our journal: