MANUSCRIPT PEER-REVIEW PROCESS

Initial editorial assessment

     Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment conducted by a member of the Editorial Board, which may include the Editor-in-Chief, an Associate Editor, or a member of the Scientific Committee. When a Scientific Committee member is assigned to this stage, the selection is based on their expertise and the submitted manuscript's specific subject area. The purpose of this preliminary evaluation is to determine whether the manuscript falls within the scope of the GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, meets the journal's standards of scientific quality and originality, complies with the Instructions for Authors, and demonstrates sufficient potential to justify external peer review.

     The initial screening is normally completed within 2 to 14 days after submission. Based on the recommendation of the assigned editor, the Editor-in-Chief and the Associate Editors have the final authority to decide whether a manuscript will proceed to the external peer-review process or be rejected at the editorial stage.

     Manuscripts considered to be outside the journal's scope, lacking sufficient scientific quality or originality, or failing to satisfy the journal's editorial requirements may be declined without external review (desk rejection). Only manuscripts that are considered to have the potential to make a valuable contribution to the journal and to be of interest to its readership are forwarded for formal double-blind peer review.

External Peer Review

     Following a successful initial editorial assessment, manuscripts considered suitable for publication are submitted to double-blind external peer review. The articles are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with recognised expertise in the manuscript's subject area. When necessary, the Editorial Office may invite additional reviewers to obtain specialist advice on particular aspects of the study.

     Reviewers are selected on the basis of their scientific expertise, publication record, previous reviewing experience, and ability to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations. Authors may suggest potential reviewers and may also request the exclusion of specific reviewers due to potential conflicts of interest. Such requests are carefully considered; however, the final selection of reviewers remains entirely at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief and the Associate Editors.

     The GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites operates a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process. All participants in the editorial process are required to maintain strict confidentiality regarding submitted manuscripts and the peer-review reports.

     The primary objective of peer review is to provide an independent, rigorous, and impartial assessment of the scientific quality, originality, and significance of the submitted work, while offering constructive recommendations that help authors improve their manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

      originality, novelty, and scientific contribution;

      relevance and significance for the journal's readership;

     clarity of the research objectives and adequacy of the literature review;

     methodological rigor and appropriateness of the research design;

      validity of the analyses, interpretation of results, and strength of the conclusions;

      organization, clarity, and quality of writing;

      quality, relevance, and presentation of tables, figures, and supplementary materials;

     compliance with ethical and publishing standards.

     The peer-review process is generally completed within one to three months, although the exact duration may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript. The Editorial Office makes every reasonable effort to ensure a timely and efficient review process.

     After receiving the reviewers' reports, the handling editor evaluates all comments and recommendations before submitting the manuscript to the Editor-in-Chief, who, together with the Associate Editors, makes the final editorial decision. Editorial decisions are based on the scientific merit of the manuscript and the quality of the reviewers' arguments rather than on the number of positive or negative recommendations. Where reviewers provide differing opinions, the editors may seek additional expert advice before reaching a final decision.

     The possible editorial decisions are:

     Accept;

     Accept with Minor Revisions;

     Major Revisions Required;

     Reject with the possibility of resubmission after substantial revision;

     Reject.

     If, based on the reviewers' reports, the editors conclude that a manuscript has the potential to be published, the authors will be invited to revise their submission. The reviewers' comments, together with any additional recommendations from the Editorial Board, will be forwarded to the corresponding author to facilitate the preparation of a revised manuscript.

     Authors are required to submit a revised version of the manuscript together with a detailed point-by-point response addressing each comment and recommendation provided by the reviewers and the Editorial Board. For every comment, authors should clearly indicate how the manuscript has been revised or provide a scientifically justified explanation when a recommendation has not been implemented.

     Upon resubmission, the revised manuscript and the authors' response letter are evaluated by the handling editor and the Editor-in-Chief. Depending on the extent and quality of the revisions, the editors may:

      accept the manuscript for publication;

     return the revised manuscript to the original reviewers for an additional round of peer review if further expert evaluation is considered necessary;

      reject the manuscript without further external review if the editors determine that the reviewers' comments have not been adequately addressed or that the revisions fail to meet the scientific and editorial standards of the journal.

     The final decision regarding publication rests exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief and the Associate Editors, who consider the reviewers' recommendations together with the overall scientific quality, originality, and suitability of the manuscript for publication in the GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites.

Final article proofreading

     Once a manuscript has been formally accepted, it enters the production stage, during which it is prepared for online publication. This process includes technical editing, copyediting, language editing, formatting, reference verification, and final quality control to ensure compliance with the journal's publishing standards.

     Acceptance of a manuscript does not automatically guarantee publication. During the production process, the Editorial Board and the Technical Editorial Office may identify ethical concerns, technical inconsistencies, inaccuracies, or other issues that were not detected during peer review. In such cases, the editors reserve the right to request additional revisions from the authors or, in exceptional circumstances, to withdraw the acceptance and reject the manuscript if the identified issues cannot be satisfactorily resolved or are found to compromise the scientific integrity of the work.

     Before publication, the corresponding author will receive the final proof of the article for proofreading and approval. This is the final opportunity to identify and correct typographical, formatting, or minor editorial errors before the article is published. Where necessary, the Editorial Office may also request additional clarifications or responses to queries raised during the production process. Authors are expected to carefully review the proof, implement or confirm any required corrections, and provide their final approval for publication within the time specified by the Editorial Office.

     Once the corresponding author has approved the final proof and the article has been published online, the published article becomes the journal's version of record. No changes will normally be made to the published article itself. Where significant errors, ethical issues, or concerns affecting the reliability or integrity of the published work are identified after publication, the journal may issue an erratum, corrigendum, expression of concern, or retraction, as appropriate, in accordance with its editorial policies and internationally accepted standards of publication ethics.

---