Guideline for Reviewers

Policies for Reviewing Manuscripts
  • The International Journal of Georesources and Environment (IJGE) does not reveal the identity of reviewers to author(s). It is suggested that reviewers remove their identities on the manuscript if comments or changes are marked directly on it.
  • Peer reviewers should respond promptly to the editor in charge with their availability by the date indicated in the invitation
  • The unpublished manuscript is a privileged document and all intellectual properties belong to the authors. We ask reviewers to protect it from any form of exploitation, to refrain from using the information contained in the manuscript for the advancement of their own research and not to cite a manuscript before it has been published.
  • If you are not in a position to evaluate a given article impartially, please advise the editor in charge with that explanation.
  • Please give detailed comments that will help the editors to make a decision. Even if the manuscript cannot be accepted, we still would like to pass on constructive comments to help the author(s) improve.
  • Reviewers are not required to make changes or to correct mistakes, but any help in spelling and grammar would be appreciated.
  • When you write comments to the author's, please present criticism dispassionately and avoid using abrasive remarks.
  • The editors gratefully receive recommendations from reviewers. However, the editors may not be able to honor every recommendation a reviewer made since the editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations from several sources.
  • After a reviewer’s recommendation is received, the editor in charge will send an official letter of appreciation to the reviewer.

 Evaluation Criteria

In evaluating the overall quality of a manuscript, please keep the following in mind:

  • Originality: Does the paper present new, innovative or insightful information? Does it reflect up-to-date knowledge on the subject?
  •  Importance: Is the content important to the relevant field and of interest to the readers?
  • Methodology: Are the approach, design or methods appropriate? Are the analytic or experimental techniques adequate? Are they described clearly?
  • Clarity: Is the purpose of the paper clear? Does the paper stay focused? Are any areas vague or difficult to understand? Are there any inconsistencies in the paper?
  • Materials Organization: Are ideas developed and related in a logic sequence? Are transitions between discussions smooth and easy to follow? Is the content consistent with the purpose of the paper?
  • Accuracy of Statements: Is any information in the paper inaccurate? Are there any errors or contradictions?
  • Data Analysis and Interpretation: Are the presented data credible? Are the figures and tables relevant? Are the legends and titles properly clarified? Is interpretation accurate?
  • Results and Conclusions: Are the results relevant to the posed problem? Are conclusions sound and warranted by the data?
  • Figures, Tables and Referencing: Are figures and tables good quality? Does the referencing format meet the requirements? Are the references up to date on the topic?
  • Technical English Writing: Is the manuscript well written? readable?
Examples of manuscripts which are considered not-acceptable as research papers in IJGE:
- not presenting any new results, or not enriching the knowledge base in that field,
- presenting results which are already published elsewhere (either by the authors themselves or someone else),
- presenting materials which do not fit in the scope of the journal,
- poorly written in English (e.g., not easy to understand, with conflicting/unclear/confusing statements, frequent grammar errors and misspellings).

Manuscript Evaluation Outcomes

IJGE publishes research papers under Articles, Reviews and Technical Notes. When the novelty and important contribution is of limited scope in a manuscript, it may be considered for publication as Technical Notes. All papers have to go through a peer review process and meet the journal requirements. Papers on comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art on methodologies, technologies, etc. will be included in the Review category. The outcome of review will fall into one of five categories (see reviewers' report).


Reviewers are required to complete the review and submit a review report within four (4) weeks from the date receiving the manuscript. At the end of three weeks, the editor in charge may start sending reminders to the reviewers.

Reviewer’s Report

The report from a reviewer contains the information required for the editors to evaluate the manuscript. Please complete the report and send it to the editor who is in contact with you. You may cc it to the editorial office "".

For more details, please download "Peer review policies and evaluation criteria".