Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content

Journal of Mining and Geology

JMG PEER REVIEW PROCESS

  1. Submission of Paper

The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is usually via an online system on the Journal’s website. Occasionally, journals may accept submissions by email.

  1. Editorial Office Assessment

The journal checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.

  1. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)

The EIC checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.

  1. EIC Assigns a Reviewer/Associate Editor (AE)

JMG has a pool of Reviewers/ Associate Editors who handle the peer review.

  1. Review is Conducted

The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

  1. Journal Evaluates the Reviews

The EIC considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.

  1. The Decision is Communicated

The EIC sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Whether the comments are anonymous or not will depend on the type of peer review that the journal operates.

  1. Next Steps

If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the editor.