Peer Review Process
Preliminary suitability of manuscripts is determined by the editors and submissions with insufficient priority are rejected promptly. Manuscripts not prepared in the advised style will be sent back to authors without scientific review. All other submissions are registered and the authors are notified (by e-mail and online) with the reference number. The registered manuscripts are sent to independent experts for scientific evaluation.
The peer-review system
The peer-review process is an essential part of the publication process, which improves the manuscripts our journal publishes. It is only by collaboration with our reviewers that editors can ensure that the manuscripts published are among the most important in their disciplines of scientific research.
We highly appreciate the work of our reviewers and therefore we set up an innovative beneficiation system based on recompensing actions:
- Financial beneficiation on article publication
- Possibility to publish reviewer’s name in accepted articles
- Yearly reviewers issue
- Maintenance of an electronic databases of our reviewers so that they can easily be included in the calculation of a reviewer factor if this will be launched.
Initial manuscript evaluation
The editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those 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 minimum criteria are passed onto at least two experts for review.
Selecting peer-reviewers
Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process, and we base our choice on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and our own previous experience of a reviewer's characteristics. We ask suggestions for reviewers from the author though these recommendations may or may not be used.
Reviewer reports
Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript :
- Is original
- Is methodologically sound
- Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
- Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
- Correctly references previous relevant work
Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not a part of the peer review process. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the initial referees. Reviewers may request more than one revision of a manuscript.
Timing
We believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the scientific community as a whole. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the number of days agreed. Two-three weeks to review an article is appropriate for most articles. If reviewers anticipate a longer delay than previously expected, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternatives.
Anonymity
We do not release reviewers' identities to authors or to other reviewers during the reviewing process. We ask reviewers not to identify themselves to authors without the editor's knowledge. If they wish to reveal their identities while the manuscript is under consideration, this should be done via the editor. We deplore any attempt by authors to confront reviewers or determine their identities. Our own policy is to neither confirm nor deny any speculation about reviewers' identities during the reviewing process, and we encourage reviewers to adopt a similar policy. We launch a novelty in peer review and offer the possibility to reviewers to publish their name on accepted articles. If they desire to maintain their anonymity, they will appear as anonymous in the published article. With this option we want to reward reviewers in public.
Editor’s decision is final
Reviewers advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.
Becoming a reviewer for jES
If you are not currently a reviewer for the Journal of Environmental Solutions but would like to be added to the list of reviewers, please contact the journal manager (jes@us.es). The benefits of reviewing for jES include the opportunity to see and evaluate the latest work in your research area at an early stage, and to be acknowledged in an annual statement in jES if you have reviewed manuscripts in the preceding 12 months. You will also enter in our beneficiation system and you have the option to publish your name in accepted articles revised by you.
Our beneficiation system: reduction on article publication
At the end of every natural year, the number of articles reviewed by a referee are counted. The referee receives an equivalent reduction for his next publication in jES.
- All reviews are taken into account, independent if the article was finally accepted for publication or not.
- The referee receives 1% reduction per review, with a total maximum of 100%
- The reduction can be used for the publication of the next article and expires after one year.
- The reduction is given to the reviewer, and can be used for publishing a new article were he/she is the first author or co-author.
A Reviewer Factor
Lately, there is a lot of discussion going on about recognising the work of reviewers. One way to recognise the work and to give practical value to reviewers’ activity could be a reviewer factor. Electronic publishing has allowed the calculation of several quality indices including the impact factor and the h-index, so why not a reviewer factor? We will maintain an electronic databases of our reviewers so that their work can easily be included in the calculation of a reviewer factor if this will be launched.
