First evaluation

     The collection of all manuscripts is accredited to the executive editor. Each manuscript is assigned an individual identification code which is used throughout the publication process. Within seven days of submission of the paper, delivery of the manuscript is confirmed by the executive editor. The role of the editors only comes into play if the complete contribution is submitted in accordance with the instructions for authors. If the contribution is complete, the editor-in-chief is delivered the manuscript by executive editor for first evaluation. At this stage, two decisions can be made: acceptance or rejection for peer-review.


     The paper can be rejected without review, on the grounds that the studies reported are not sufficiently novel or important to merit publication in the journal. Manuscripts which are regarded as unsuitable either due to lack of originality or limited interest to the target audience are returned back to the author(s). It is the executive editor who will confirm the acceptance or rejection of the paper for peer review after first evaluation within a period of three weeks.

Second evaluation

     The editor-in-chief seeks advice from experts who belong to the relevant field. For the second evaluation of the paper, original research articles, review articles and technical reports are referred by a minimum of two reviewers. Geojournal of Tourism and Geosites uses double-blind review in which the identities of both the reviewer and author are concealed throughout the review process. It generally takes two to three months for the review process to be completed. Every possible effort is made to respond as soon as possible.


     The objective of the reviewer is to perform an impartial evaluation of scientific merits of the manuscript. Following aspects of the submitted manuscripts are considered for reviewers’ comments: novelty and originality of the work; significance to the field of study, design and clarity; accuracy of the title, adequacy of abstract (accurate summary of entire paper) and keywords; adequacy of introduction (purpose and rationale) and literature review ; rigorous methodology, rigor of analysis (appropriate interpretation), considerable evidences which support claims and conclusions; linguistic and stylistic level, quality and relevance of attached figures and tables (too many, too few, clarity), and overall assessment of paper.


     If a manuscript is considered as unable to meet the standards of the journal, lacks in scientific rigor or contains major weaknesses, it will be provided constructive criticism by the reviewers so as to facilitate the authors to ultimately improve their work. If a manuscript is believed to be potentially acceptable for publication but requires an improvement, it is invited for reconsideration with the possibility that the authors will fully address the reviewer’s suggestions. Once the editor-in-chief receives and considers all the reviews, a decision letter is sent to the author. Several types of decisions can be made: acceptance without revision, minor revision, major revision or rejection.

Third evaluation

     When a manuscript is asked for revision, it is the responsibility of the authors to return the revised version of their manuscript as soon as possible. If a paper is finally accepted for publication, immediate action may ensure fast publication. The revised version is evaluated by the editor-in-chief. There could be a possibility that the authors are asked to make second revision, after which the final decision is made by the editor-in-chief. At this stage, the manuscript could either be accepted or rejected.

Final proofreading

     Along with the edited version of their manuscript, authors will receive a pdf file for final proofreading. This is the last opportunity for an article to be viewed before its publication on the journal website. Once it is published, no changes or modifications can be introduced. Thus authors are asked to check their proof pages carefully against the manuscript within three working days and prepare a separate document which contains all the modifications that should be introduced. Sometimes the authors are asked to provide additional comments and explanations in response to remarks and queries from the technical editor.


     Any errors detected in the published material are required to be reported to the executive editor. The modified material should then be sent to the executive editor by corresponding authors via email. This corrected material will be then considered for publication as soon as possible.