Long-term environmental changes

Guidelines for authors | Reviewer's_form | Long-term environmental changes: Publications | Long-term environmental changes: Conferences



Review procedure

Communication between authors, editor (M. Andrič) and reviewers is through electronic (or ordinary) mail. There are two phases of the reviewing process:
1. Author(s) send(s) the manuscript to the editor, who checks if the technical characteristics are adequate (please see 'Guide for authors') and roughly estimates the scientific value of the paper. The editor informs the author that a) the paper was sent to reviewers or b) the paper needs to be improved before it will be sent in review. I will try to make this decision as fast as possible (no longer than 5-10 days).
2. Paper is reviewed by one or two reviewers, who can decide whether they want to be anonymous or not. The author(s) is/are not anonymous. Reviewers need to finish their review within 30 days. Reviews, together with editor's opinion/review, are sent to the author(s). We expect that the author(s) will complete minor corrections within ca. 1 month and moderate corrections within ca. 2-3 months.

If there are several authors of the paper, only one of them (first/main author) will be responsible for communication in the name of all co-authors. In case of dispute between the author(s) and reviewer(s), the final decision about the paper is in hands of the editor, who decides alone, with help of another reviewer, or the members of editorial board. Reviewers are not paid for their work, but they get one copy of the book, where the reviewed paper was published. Each author will receive the monograph and an electronic (.pdf) copy of the paper.


Papers in review procedure should not be publicly commented by the editor, reviewers and the members of editorial board. It is expected that reviewers don't send the manuscript to a third person (except if an opinion of an additional expert, who follows the same ethical standards, is needed, and the editor is informed about this).


Each paper will be given 'received' and 'revised version accepted' date. Papers will be published in the same order as accepted.


Data published in the paper are the result of research of the author and/or all co-authors, who took part in research and/or writing the manuscript (we will not support 'slavery'). If you would like to publish figures/graphs for which copyright owner(s) (are) not author(s) of the paper, the first (main) author needs to obtain permission to use the material. We publish original, previously unpublished papers and ask our reviewers to draw our attention to cases of plagiarism or conflicts of interests.

Communication between reviewers and authors

We expect that reviewer's comments will be polite, showing respect to the authors. The best reviewer is not the one who hair-splittingly finds every single mistake, but the one who writes a constructive criticism and suggests inventive solutions. The authors are asked to be self-critical. Reviewing will be very strict, because we would like to receive the best papers you can deliver.