Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Geohuman: People, Place, and Power applies a double-blind peer review process for all research articles and review articles. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential during the review process.

Editorial Screening

All submissions are first screened by the editorial office to check journal scope, manuscript completeness, ethical declarations, similarity level, language clarity, metadata quality, and compliance with author guidelines. Manuscripts may be desk rejected if they are outside the scope of GeoHuman, lack scholarly rigor, show serious ethical concerns, or fail to meet basic formatting and language requirements.

Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to an editor and normally reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are selected based on scholarly competence, absence of conflicts of interest, and relevance to the manuscript topic and methodology.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate originality, relevance to the journal scope, theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, clarity of analysis, quality of data and evidence, ethical compliance, appropriateness of citations, clarity of language, and significance for the target readership.

Editorial Decisions

Possible editorial decisions are: accept, minor revision, major revision, resubmit for review, or reject. The final decision is made by the editor based on reviewer reports, editorial assessment, ethical considerations, and the overall contribution of the manuscript.

Revision

Authors are required to submit a revised manuscript and a response letter explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers when necessary.

Review Timeline

The journal aims to complete the first editorial screening within 1-2 weeks and the first round of peer review within 4-8 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity. These timelines are indicative and do not override the need for rigorous review.

Confidentiality

Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must treat submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used for personal research or advantage without written permission from the authors.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must decline assignments where there is a conflict of interest, including recent collaboration, institutional relationship, personal relationship, financial interest, or academic rivalry that may affect impartiality.