The practice of peer review is to ensure that only good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out by all reputable journals. Our reviewers therefore play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of Regional Sustainability and all published manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.
The Editors screen all new submissions and submit the editorial comments to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief further evaluate all submissions before deciding if they should be rejected or assigned to an Associate Editor for peer review. Those that rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the criteria for peer review are passed on to one of the Associate Editors to invite at least two expert reviewers to review the manuscripts.
Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will normally be informed within one week, latest within two weeks of receipt.
Reviewers are matched to the manuscript according to their country, methodological and contents area expertise. Our reviewer database contains reviewer contact details together with their subject areas of interest, and this is constantly being updated. We welcome suggestions for reviewers from authors, though these recommendations may not necessarily be used.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate a manuscript for:
- originality and significance of contribution
- adequacy and logicality of methodology and analysis
- readability (clear, concise, and completeness)
- interesting results that are clearly presented and support the conclusions
- correctly references previous relevant work
Reviewers are asked to provide both comments to the editor as well as anonymous comments/recommendations to the author.
Reviewers are not expected to correct or copy edit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process.
Typically, the manuscript will be reviewed within 3-8 weeks from submission date. Should the reviewers’ reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed a further expert opinion will be sought. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the journal within 4 weeks and the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors may request further advice from the reviewers at this time. The Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors may request more than one revision of a manuscript.
The Associate Editors will make recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief based on the reviewers’ comments, and the Editor-in-Chief will do the final decision: accept, reject, or revision. This decision will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the reviewers.
If the author is invited to resubmit after a major revision, the revised version should be submitted within 4 weeks. If necessary, revised manuscripts may be returned to the initial reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors may request more than one revision of a manuscript, and alternative reviewers may also be invited to review the manuscript at any time.
If you are not currently a reviewer for the Regional Sustainability but would like to be considered as a reviewer for this Journal, please contact the editorial office by e-mail at email@example.com, and provide your contact details. If your request is approved and you are added to the online reviewer database, you will receive a confirmatory email, asking you to add details on your field of expertise, in the format of subject classifications.