Peer Review Process

Peer-Review Process

Natura: Journal of General Environmental Science follows a rigorous and transparent review process to ensure the quality and credibility of the published articles. The journal adopts a double-blind (double-anonymous) peer-review type, where the identities of both the authors and reviewers are kept anonymous during the review process.

 

Submission and Initial Evaluation

All manuscripts submitted to Natura: Journal of General Environmental Science undergo an initial evaluation by the editorial team to assess their suitability and compliance with the journal's scope and guidelines. Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation are assigned a unique identification number for further processing. The Editor-in-Chief ensures the manuscript aligns with the journal's scope and assigns a handling editor for further review. Manuscripts failing to meet the journal's initial requirements may be rejected without external review.

 

Peer Review

Each eligible manuscript is sent for review to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers in the relevant field. Reviewers are carefully selected based on their expertise, experience, and prior contributions to the field. If conflicting opinions arise among the reviewers, additional reviewers may be engaged to provide a balanced evaluation.

 

Double-Blind Review

Natura ensures a double-blind (double-anonymous) peer-review process, where the identities of both the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. This approach helps maintain objectivity and fairness in the evaluation process, minimizing potential biases.

 

Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to assess the submitted manuscripts based on:

  • Scientific quality and originality.
  • Relevance to the journal's scope.
  • Clarity of presentation.
  • Adherence to ethical guidelines.
  • Constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement are encouraged to help authors enhance the quality of their work.

 

Review Duration

Natura strives to provide a timely and efficient peer-review process. Reviewers are typically given a specific timeframe to complete their evaluations. Authors are informed of the estimated review process duration at the initial submission or after any significant revisions.

 

Decision and Revision

Upon completion of the peer review process, the editorial team considers the reviewers' comments and recommendations. The possible outcomes include:

  •  
  • Minor revisions request.
  • Major revisions request.
  • Acceptance without changes.
  • Recommendation for resubmission.

If revisions are requested, authors are expected to address all reviewers' comments thoroughly and resubmit the revised manuscript within the stipulated timeframe (generally three weeks).

 

Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding a manuscript's publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief, based on the handling editor’s recommendations and approval from the editorial board.

 

Confidentiality

Natura maintains strict confidentiality throughout the peer review process. Reviewers are required to treat the manuscripts and their contents as confidential documents and must not disclose any information to unauthorized individuals.

 

Review Process Improvement

Natura continuously seeks to improve its review process. Authors’ and reviewers’ feedback is invaluable in this endeavor. The journal welcomes constructive suggestions to enhance the efficiency, transparency, and fairness of the review process.

 

Contact

For any inquiries or questions related to the review process, please contact the editorial team at [email protected] .

This enhanced process ensures that all published articles in Natura: Journal of General Environmental Science meet the highest standards of academic quality and contribute significantly to the field of environmental science