The journal follows a double-blind peer-review process, where both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous. This process is mandatory for all article types submitted to the Journal of Water and Soil Management and Modeling (WSMM), except for editorials and letters to the Editor, which are evaluated by the Editorial Board. A double-blind peer-review process helps to limit bias by focusing solely on the content. Peer reviews improve the quality of scientific publications, ensure that previous research in a particular area is acknowledged, detect plagiarism, and play a central role in academic course development. Participating in peer review also provides the added benefit of staying up-to-date with the latest developments in the field. Two reviewers, selected based on their expertise and experience, will review articles and provide feedback on strengths and weaknesses. Most submissions will require revisions.
Authors should thoroughly read the Instructions to Authors to understand how to prepare a manuscript for publication. Upon receiving the manuscript, the corresponding author will be notified via email and provided with the registration number. Please include this number in the subject line of all future emails and file names sent to the Editor and Editorial staff. The manuscript will be reviewed by two referees, and a response can be expected within six weeks of receipt. If the manuscript is accepted, the author should prepare the final version, considering the referees' remarks. Finally, the electronic versions are sent to the editor. After the manuscript is finally accepted, it will be passed on to the production team for copyediting and preparation for printing.
After submitting the manuscript, authors cannot be added, removed, or reordered. They should only communicate with the editor-in-chief about the reviewing process.
The journal uses the double-blind method, with two members of the Editorial Board (a Section Editor and another editor) evaluating the manuscript. After an initial editorial evaluation, a manuscript submitted for publication as a refereed article is sent for review by two external peer-reviewers within approximately 10 days of submission. All other contributions are reviewed by two members of the journal's Editorial Board, and authors can expect a response within four to six weeks of submission. The identities of the editors and peer-reviewers are kept confidential from the authors and vice versa. This approach promotes constructive criticism to authors by editors and reviewers.
Reviewers are selected and invited by the Editorial staff based on their field of expertise. They are asked to complete their review within one month, but may request an extension to submit their report. Consult the Publication Ethics of the journal for reviewer instructions.
Editors and peer-reviewers must adhere to COPE's ethical guidelines for peer-reviewers. This includes respecting author confidentiality, refraining from discussing an author's work or material publicly during the pre-publication process, and avoiding appropriating author ideas or intellectual property. Manuscripts will be evaluated based on specific criteria such as originality, novelty, innovation, academic merit, and pertinence, in accordance with COPE's reviewer guidelines. Criteria are evaluated using a standardized marking grid, which is provided to both authors and reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their demonstrated expertise, such as publications. Authors may also suggest peer-reviewers with whom they do not have a conflict of interest. Manuscripts may be accepted with minor or major revisions or rejected if they do not meet the standards of the Journal of Sustainability Research (SR).
The editors will work with authors, to the extent that it is reasonable, to help achieve publications of the highest quality. The editors will honor requests from authors that a particular editor/reviewer does not review their submission if these requests are well-reasoned and practicable. When revisions are requested before the final decision, revised manuscripts must be submitted within one month. If an author is dissatisfied with an editorial decision, they may appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, who will review all relevant documentation (manuscript, emails, evaluations, etc.) and make a final decision within one month.
Decision
After each round of peer-review, the reviewer(s) will assess the submitted manuscript and the peer-review reports. The Editor(s) will make the final decision regarding each submission, ensuring the excellence and high standard of our decision-making process. The Editor(s) may choose to accept the manuscript if as following options:
If the decision is 'revision', the authors are requested to take the remarks of the referees and editors into account. A second reviewing process may follow. Upon final acceptance, the authors must provide a final version of the manuscript based on the template and submit it via the system to the Editorial staff.
To ensure a speedy editorial process, each manuscript will only undergo two rounds of review and revisions. We urge authors to address all issues raised by the reviewers after the first round of peer-review. Publication acceptance takes approximately 12 weeks, pending final approval by reviewers and the Editor-in-Chief, based on the level of requested modifications, reviewer comments, and author modifications for accuracy and precision.
Copyediting:
After a manuscript is accepted for publication, it undergoes a first stage of copyediting. During this stage, the editorial staff corrects any minor mistakes, such as punctuation or references, and ensures that all necessary information regarding the manuscript and authors has been provided. Once this stage is complete, authors will receive an edited version of their manuscript for author copyediting. This is the final stage where substantial copy editing changes to the text are allowed. The next stage, proofreading, is restricted to correcting typographical and layout errors.
Proofreading:
The editorial staff will create the final version of the manuscript in the journal's template, and the PDF proof will be sent to the author for final review before publication. Authors should review the proofs for typographical or layout errors and use the sticky notes tool to mark and explain any necessary changes.
Publication:
Once the final proofread manuscript has been received and all corrections have been made, it will be published. The author will be promptly notified when the article is available online. Publication may be delayed in some cases to ensure simultaneous publication of all articles.
Appealing Decisions:
If authors wish to appeal the decision on their manuscript, they may do so by sending an email to the Editor-in-Chief within 15 days of notification. In this case, they should provide a letter detailing the reasons for the appeal, as well as a full response to any relevant reviewers' comments, to the Editor-in-Chief. If appropriate, the manuscript will be sent to another reviewer who has not previously evaluated it. The Editor-in-Chief will assess the reviewers' comments and any subsequent editorial communications, and their decision will be final.
Privacy Statement:
The names and email addresses provided on this journal site will only be used for the purposes stated by this journal and will not be shared with any other party for any reason.