GEUS Bulletin is a peer-reviewed, diamond open access journal published by the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS). We publish geoscience research papers, monographs and map descriptions for Denmark, Greenland and the Arctic region. GEUS Bulletin believes that open science benefits scientists, industry and society. We do not charge publication fees and all our articles can be freely downloaded online. IF 2019: 0.680 5-year IF: 0.656
GEUS Bulletin publishes geoscience research papers with a focus on Denmark, Greenland and the wider North Atlantic and Arctic regions. The journal serves a broad geoscientific readership from research, industry, government agencies, NGOs and special interest groups.
We publish two main categories of articles, (1) short articles (up to 6 pages), in a rapid-communication style that are of immediate interest to the geoscience community, and (2) regular articles (up to 20 pages) with fewer restrictions on the total word count and number of display items. We also publish monographs and map descriptions.
If this is one of your first times reviewing a manuscript or for general guidance as to how to complete a thorough review, read our guide.
Topics covered in this page include:
- Returning a review
- Review criteria
- Short articles
- Regular articles
- Assessment decision
- Competing interests
Returning a review
After reviewing a manuscript, submit your review online using the GEUS Bulletin online submission system. Reviewers do not need to register or login to the system, simply follow the link provided in the original invitation to review email.
When submitting a review, reviewers will be prompted to complete a series of questions. These are intended to help guide the reviewer. We recommend reading the review questions (pdf) before returning your review.
Reviewers may also wish to submit an edited manuscript and their own written review summary. Both can be uploaded to our online submission system.
Step-by-step instructions are available during the submission process. Contact the editorial office at firstname.lastname@example.org for additional advice. For technical support contact email@example.com.
Reviewers are asked to judge all submissions on their scientific merit, and specifically by the following criteria:
- A submission must document fully the methods used. This includes any field methods and sample collection, software, laboratory analyses and statistical treatments of data.
- A submission must contain a clear rationale for the study. This includes a clearly formulated research question, aims and objectives. The data presented and discussed must correspond to these.
- Conclusions must always be supported by the data presented and the methodology described.
- Submissions must be written in clear (UK) English and follow a logical structure.
These short manuscripts (up to 6 pages) often provide first accounts of ongoing research projects, descriptions of new methods, datasets or literature reviews. Rapid publication of these manuscripts should be of interest to scientists in this field, or another related field.
Reviewers should consider the overall quality and readability, alongside the scientific merits of the article, in view of the limited space available (maximum 3000 words for the entire manuscript and typically 4 mid-sized display items (figures and tables). Bear in mind that methods can be submitted in a supplementary file.
These articles are typically up to 20 pages of typeset manuscript, allowing authors more pages in which to document their research or an in-depth literature review.
These manuscripts may be more specialist in nature and should be of interest to scientists in this field. Reviewers should consider the overall quality and readability, alongside the scientific merits of the article.
Reviewers should read the entire submission and return a commented or edited manuscript file along with their comments via the online form. For short articles, it is often enough to complete the online form, only. As part of this form, reviewers are asked to make one of the following recommendations to the subject editor:
1. Accept submission: The manuscript can be published immediately, and no further revisions are required. This option is rarely applicable to manuscripts in the first round of reviews, and usually only applicable when reviewing a manuscript for the second time.
2. Revisions required: The manuscript is publishable in principle but requires minor revision. E.g. to text or figures. The manuscript is unlikely to require another round of reviews.
3. Resubmit for review: The manuscript is publishable in principle but requires substantial revision. E.g. where the manuscript is flawed, perhaps severely flawed, but fixable. It may require rephrasing throughout, substantial reorganisation, additional figures/tables, a more detailed methodology or new analyses. The manuscript may or may not require another round of reviews.
4. Decline submission: The manuscript is fatally flawed and should not be published. E.g. the conclusions are not supported by the data presented or the submission suffers from methodological problems, which cannot be easily fixed with rewrites. Note: We usually ask authors to resubmit revisions in 30 days. If the manuscript is severely flawed but you anticipate that the authors will need more than 30 days to complete the revisions, you might also choose to decline the submission and explain this to the editor. Such a manuscript would require a second round of reviews if resubmitted.
The online system also contains two other options: (1) Resubmit elsewhere (i.e. the manuscript is outside the scope of the journal) and (2) See comments (i.e. if you feel unable to make any reccomendation). These two options are rarely used.
If a reviewer suspects a conflict of interest, plagiarism, duplicate publication, simultaneous submission or fabrication of data, they should alert the subject editor immediately.
The final decision to publish or reject a manuscript is with the subject editor. Their decision is based on feedback from the reviewers and their own judgement. The subject editor may contact the reviewer to seek clarifications on any aspect of their review.
Reviewers are required to declare any competing interest, whether actual or perceived, during the review process. A competing interest could be, for example, if the reviewer and one or more of the authors come from the same institution, research group or have actively (and closely) collaborated within the past two years. Likewise, it might be a financial interest that may be perceived to impact the publication of the work.
Instances of undisclosed conflict of interest will be handled according to the guidelines outlined by COPE.