Peer review policy

Peer Review Policy

The European Journal of Geography (EJG) operates a rigorous, transparent peer review process designed to ensure fairness, quality, and integrity. Peer review is double-blind, with at least two independent reviewers per manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief or a delegated academic editor makes the final decision.

Pre-Check
Upon submission, manuscripts undergo:

• Technical pre-check: assessing suitability for the journal/section/Special Issue, adherence to research and ethical standards, and basic methodological rigor.

• Editorial pre-check: an academic editor evaluates scientific soundness, methodology, references, and alignment with the journal’s scope. Editors may reject, request revisions, or proceed to peer review.

Editors and Guest Editors submitting their own work are handled by independent editors to avoid conflicts of interest.

Peer Review Process

• EJG staff coordinate all communications between authors, reviewers, and editors.

• Reviewers are selected for expertise, publication record, and independence. Conflicts of interest are strictly avoided. Authors may suggest or exclude reviewers, but final selection is at the journal’s discretion.

• Reviewers must hold relevant academic qualifications, have proven experience in the field, and maintain professional and ethical standards. They must not be from the same institution as the authors or have collaborated with them on publications within the past three years.

• At least two review reports are required. Reviewers provide feedback within 15–30 days, or 2-3 weeks for revised manuscripts. Extensions are allowed upon request.

• The process is double-blind: reviewers do not know author identities, and authors do not know reviewer identities.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

• Authors: Responsible for all content, including AI-generated material. AI cannot be listed as an author and must be disclosed in Methods or Acknowledgment. Authors must verify accuracy and avoid copyright or bias issues.

• Reviewers: Must not use AI to write reviews or summaries that could compromise confidentiality. AI may only assist with language, and reviewers remain fully responsible for their reports.

Revisions

• Minor or major revisions are communicated through the academic editor. Conflicting reviewer opinions are resolved by the editor, who may request additional reviews.

• Normally, two rounds of major revision are allowed. Authors needing more time are advised to withdraw and resubmit.

• Revised manuscripts are returned to reviewers who requested them or who recommended major revisions.

Editor Decisions

• Academic editors make all acceptance decisions after at least two review reports. Options include: accept, accept with minor revisions, request revisions, reject, or request an additional reviewer.

• Editors check reviewer suitability, adequacy of comments, and overall scientific quality. Editors may override reviewer recommendations but must justify decisions.

• Editors or board members submitting their own work are evaluated by independent editors and reviewers to prevent conflicts of interest.

Integrity and Transparency

• Plagiarism detection and manuscript screening are performed at submission.

• Decisions are based solely on scientific quality, methodological rigor, and contribution to the field.

• EJG staff facilitate the review process but do not make acceptance decisions.

Production

• EJG in-house teams handle manuscript production. Authors may be asked to use professional editing services or consult a native English-speaking colleague if necessary.

Principles
EJG publishes only scientifically sound manuscripts, without artificially inflating rejection rates. The process ensures fairness, transparency, and accountability for authors, reviewers, and editors.