Practice of peer review

The review of scientific articles is a generally accepted policy and a cornerstone of maintaining a high level of publications in the modern era. Thorough reviewing is especially important for open journals.

There are different review practices. In the almanac "Geocontext" in view of its extremely high degree of interdisciplinarity, since 2018 the practice of double-blind review is consistently implementing. The reviewers are both members of the editorial board and outside experts. Reviews are recorded by the Russian citation index The selection and invitation of new reviewers is made by the editorial board of the "Geocontext "almanac. The editorial board of the "Geocontext" almanac invites potential reviewers to participate in the review of articles and to become members of the editorial board.

Review modes

The review is carried out in a free form in the language preferred by the author of the review (as a rule, in the language of the original article), which involves the reviewer's description of the work and the presentation of an overall assessment of the submitted work on the following scale:

  • accepted for publication;
  • sent to the author for revision;
  • rejected.

Any violation of ethical principles and the principle of scientificity of the submitted publication leads to the unconditional rejection of the work.

As a rule, the review is carried out within 3-4 weeks from the moment of article submission. However, if it is necessary to involve a specialized expert, the time may increase. Taking into account that Geocontext almanacs are published only once a year, we strongly recommend potential authors to send their works to the almanac's editorial office in advance through OJM's built-in review system directly through the submission form on the website. By agreement with the editorial board it is possible to send material by e-mail.

The review mode can be changed by the editorial board to make the procedure more efficient.