Peer Review Process

The Journal of Geographical Sciences and Education (JoGSE) implements a rigorous, fair, transparent, and academic-integrity-oriented peer review process. This policy applies to all submitted manuscripts to ensure that every article meets established scientific standards and publication ethics.

JoGSE operates upon the following fundamental principles: editorial independence, fairness of assessment based on scientific quality, process confidentiality, objectivity, procedural transparency, accountability, absolute academic integrity, and the prioritization of quality over speed.

1. Double-Blind Peer Review System

JoGSE utilizes a double-blind peer review system. The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa. Both reviewers and authors are expected to refrain from any attempts to identify one another. Although the journal makes every effort to remove identifying information, the open nature of scientific publication means that absolute anonymity cannot always be guaranteed.

2. Initial Requirements and Screening

Prior to entering the peer review stage, every manuscript undergoes a two-phase initial screening process:

Submission Requirements: Manuscripts must align with the Aims and Scope, demonstrate novelty, be written in proficient academic English, remain unpublished and not currently under consideration elsewhere, be approved by all co-authors, and possess valid permissions for citations and visual materials.
Technical Screening: The editorial staff verifies the completeness of metadata, formatting, structure, quality of tables/figures, and overall administrative compliance.
Editorial Screening: The editor evaluates the preliminary scientific quality, methodology, research contribution, and relevance.

The editor reserves the right to request initial revisions or issue an immediate desk rejection if the manuscript fails to meet the minimum standards.

3. Plagiarism and Similarity Check

JoGSE maintains a zero-tolerance policy towards plagiarism, duplicate publication, and unjustified self-plagiarism. Manuscripts will be evaluated using similarity detection software (e.g., Turnitin). The editor assesses the context of the similarity qualitatively, rather than relying solely on a percentage metric. Violations may result in the termination of the review process and the ultimate rejection of the manuscript.

4. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Usage Policy

For Authors: Generative AI cannot be listed as a co-author. If AI is utilized substantively (beyond basic grammatical editing), such usage must be transparently disclosed. Authors bear full responsibility for verifying the accuracy of data and facts, and for ensuring the absence of plagiarism in AI-generated outputs.
For Reviewers: Reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading manuscripts, data, or confidential information to public AI services. Scientific evaluation must not be delegated to AI to automatically generate review reports.

5. Reviewer Appointment, Ethics, and Confidentiality

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening will be assigned to a minimum of two competent, relevant, and independent reviewers.

Criteria and Independence: Reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors, nor possess any personal, professional, or financial relationships that could constitute a conflict of interest.
Confidentiality: The entire review process is strictly confidential. Reviewers are prohibited from sharing, discussing, or deriving personal benefit from the unpublished ideas or data contained within the manuscript.
Ethics: Assessments must be objective, constructive, and scientifically grounded, free from discrimination or coercive requests for personal citations. All parties are obligated to declare any potential conflicts of interest.

6. Execution and Timeframe of Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate the novelty, theoretical framework, methodology, data interpretation, and validity of conclusions. Subsequently, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

Timeframe: The operational target for reviewer reports is 15–60 days, with 2–3 weeks allocated for the review of revisions. Actual turnaround times may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.
Disclaimer (No Guarantee of Speed or Acceptance): JoGSE does not guarantee instantaneous peer review, decisions within a matter of days, or manuscript acceptance. Timeframes published on the website are purely administrative estimates. Publication cannot be purchased, and the payment of publication fees does not influence the objectivity of editorial decisions.

7. Manuscript Revision and Disagreements

Should the editor request revisions, authors are required to submit the revised manuscript alongside a response document that academically addresses each reviewer's comment.

Revision Rounds: Generally, manuscripts undergo a maximum of two major revision rounds; however, editors may adjust this limit based on necessity.
Disagreements: In the event of conflicting comments between reviewers, the editor reserves the right to evaluate the reports, seek clarification, or appoint an additional reviewer.

8. Editorial Decisions and Appeals

The final decision (Accept, Minor/Major Revision, Reject) rests with the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the input of the Editorial Board and reviewer recommendations. The editor may deviate from reviewer recommendations provided there is a compelling scientific rationale.

Internal Manuscripts: Should members of the editorial board or editors of JoGSE serve as authors, the manuscript will be handled independently by alternative editors and reviewers to preserve objectivity.
Appeals: Authors may submit an appeal against a rejection decision if they possess substantial procedural or scientific grounds, rather than mere disagreement with the outcome.

9. Production, Editing, and Publication

Accepted articles will proceed to the production stage (encompassing copyediting, typesetting, reference formatting, and metadata generation).

Authors may be requested to clarify discrepancies or undertake professional proofreading if deemed necessary.
The Editor-in-Chief retains the authority to determine the issue placement of published articles based on the order of acceptance, production readiness, thematic balance, and journal capacity. The date of acceptance does not guarantee publication in the immediate subsequent issue.

10. Final Statement

JoGSE is committed to publishing scientific works of the highest methodological and ethical standards. Peer review serves as a quality control mechanism, though it does not guarantee that published articles are absolutely free of errors. Every manuscript is processed independently based on its scientific contribution, to maintain the trust of the academic community with professionalism and integrity.

LAST UPDATE: 2 JANUARY 2026