Reviewer Guidelines

When reviewing an article submitted to Geomorphica for the first time, we suggest that you also tell us about your expertise so that we may send appropriate articles your way in the future. To do so, please visit (log in with your ORCID credentials). You can update your expertise or delete your account at any time.


The Geomorphica Editorial Commission decided against using structured review form. However, we would like to provide guidance and questions to consider in writing your review.  The Editorial Commission is happy to hear your feedback on this process.

Reviews can be uploaded to the journal website as a PDF or copy-pasted into a text box. Any format is fine as long as reviews are clear and respectful. Reviewers may also upload marked up copies of the manuscript file. In any case, remember to strip any personal identification from your review in order to ensure the triple-anonymous model selected by Geomorphica (Anonymization Guidelines).

Geomorphica relies on volunteer copy editors from the community, any typos or grammatical issues that the reviewers can flag will be greatly appreciated. However, these issues should not form the basis of the peer review report. Any technical comments/suggestions can be appended during typesetting. 

Reviewers can discuss the manuscript with selected early career scientists, but have to indicate so on the review form.

Reviewers should clearly explain and support their judgements so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments and provide reference to additional published works, where appropriate.


Review process

In line with Diamond Open Access Journal ethics, Geomorphica promotes a fair, transparent, and open review process for submitted manuscripts. In order to reduce bias, we have decided to opt for a triple-anonymous review process, whereby the authors, reviewers and associate editor are anonymous. The reviewer’s reports, as well as the authors’ responses to reviews, will become public at the same time as the accepted paper is published by the journal. Reviewers have the option to allow their names to be published with their review at that stage to acknowledge the community-based philosophy of Geomorphica.


Ethics in Review

We remind reviewers that by accepting to review a manuscript for Geomorphica, you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. All reviews should be respectful to the author(s) and unacceptable behaviours will not be tolerated.

Geomorphica accepts submission of manuscripts rejected elsewhere. Authors must disclose resubmission and modifications of the manuscript to the editor. However, as a reviewer, you will not be given this information to avoid the risk of prejudice. In case you have reviewed this manuscript previously for another journal, we ask for a fair, transparent, and open review. As a reviewer, you may consider that the scope of Geomorphica may differ from that of the journal that rejected the manuscript previously, and the modifications that were made to the manuscript since the previous review.

Reviewers should inform the Associate Editor if a manuscript contains or appears to contain plagiarism or falsified or manipulated data, or if there are any strong similarities between the submitted manuscript and another either published or under consideration by a different journal that the reviewer is aware of.  If necessary, provide a companion or similar paper for reference during the review process.


Questions which can guide your review

As a reviewer, you may consider answering the following questions in your review:

  • Is the paper of value and interest to a significant proportion of the potential readers of Geomorphica?
  • Is the study timely and of current interest?
  • Is the manuscript clear and easy to follow?
  • Is the manuscript’s title adequate and accurate?
  • Is the abstract adequate?
  • Are the methods appropriate and described in sufficient detail to be transparent and reproducible?
  • Are the conclusions adequate and supported by the data?
  • Is the paper unnecessarily long? Does it include too many materials that can be found in other sources?
  • Is the paper significantly different to those already published in this field of study?
  • If the study disagrees significantly with the current academic consensus, is there a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make the case credible?
  • If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding, or are they superfluous?


Making a recommendation

Below are listed criteria to consider when making a recommendation to accept, request revisions, or reject a manuscript. Note that reviewer recommendations are seen by the editors only, and they do not necessarily reflect the editors’ final decision, and it is their discretion to make the final call.


(note that fixing some of these issues could allow a possible resubmission)

  • Key elements such as a title, main text, references, or figures and tables are missing.
  • The study uses a discredited method.
  • The manuscript contains plagiarized material.
  • Submissions using the same method AND analysis AND theory AND data, AND giving the same results and conclusions from existing published results without quantitative comparison, should be rejected.
  • Unsubstantiated pseudoscience or other work can either be (1) readily disproven (2) unreproducible. For example, accurately predicting future earthquakes in space and time.
  • Not being able to read the general methods and results of the manuscript due to poor Scientific English, without any unnecessary language-based gatekeeping.
  • The tables and figures are not clear enough to read.
  • Out of the broad scope of Geomorphica.
  • A clear hypothesis or motivation for the study hasn’t been established


Major Revisions 
  • The manuscript makes unsubstantiated conclusions from the data/evidence presented but can still be fixed upon revision.
  • Crucial references are missing.
  • Synthesis of previous work lacks breadth or understanding of the field.
  • The motivation for the work is poorly explained.
  • Interpretation is primarily based on previous work, not the paper’s results.
  • Lack of error analysis, flawed error analysis, or lack of information about assumptions
  • Major numerical errors that impact the validity of the results or interpretations.


Minor Revisions 
  • The results and conclusions appear sound. Still, they need to undergo some additional minor testing.
  • There were problems with the way the data were made available.
  • The figures and tables are relevant but need minor changes to improve their clarity.
  • A few key references are missing.
  • Motivation for work is good but needs some additional work.
  • Minor numerical errors.


  • Significant, exciting or innovative.
  • The work is well written. No changes to be made (apart from any minor technical corrections that can be made during the typesetting process).
  • The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and address the central question(s) posed.
  • The underlying theory is well understood and presented.
  • No changes to the methods or analysis are needed.
  • The manuscript is well organized and has an exemplary logical flow.
  • The work is not missing any key references
  • No numerical errors.