Reviewer Instructions

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-format articles (up to c. 6 pages of typeset manuscript), brief accounts in a rapid-communication style that are of immediate interest to the geoscience community, and (2) regular articles with fewer restrictions on the total word count and number of display items. We also publish monographs and map descriptions.

Topics covered in this page:


Back to author instructions >


Accepting or declining a request to review

On receiving an invitation to review, click on the link in the email to accept or decline.

Once an invitation is accepted, the reviewer has access to the submission files and review guidelines in the ‘review panel’ of the submission system.

Contact the editor handling the submission if more time is needed to return a review.

To the top



Returning a review

Reviews are submitted online from the review panel of the submission system. You do not need to register or login to the system, simply follow the link provided in the original invitation to review email.

Reviewers will be prompted to complete a review questionnaire. This is intended to help guide the review. We recommend reading the review questions before returning your review. They can be downloaded from the review panel.

At the end of the questionnaire, reviewers can upload an edited manuscript or their own summary and select a recommendation for the editor from a drop-down list.

Step-by-step instructions are available during the submission process. Contact the editorial office at for additional advice. For technical support contact

To the top



Review criteria

Reviewers are asked to judge all submissions on their scientific merit, and specifically by the following criteria:

  1. A submission must document fully the methods used. This includes any field methods and sample collection, software, laboratory analyses and statistical treatments of data.
  2. 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.
  3. Conclusions must always be supported by the data presented and the methodology described.
  4. Submissions must be written in clear (UK) English and follow a logical structure.

To the top



Short-format articles


Short-format articles provide brief accounts of new research, a case study, literature review, method or data set, early publication of which may be of interest to scientists in this or a related field.

Articles are limited to 3000 words for the main text, references, captions, acknowledgements and any additional information listed at the end of the manuscript, and typically 4 mid-sized display items (figures/tables).

In addition to the general publication criteria, reviewers should consider the overall quality and scientific merit of the manuscript in view of the limited space available. Bear in mind that detailed methods and other accompanying information can be submitted as supplementary files.

Requested return time for comments: two weeks.

Download the review questionnaire for these formats:

To the top



Regular articles

These include RESEARCH ARTICLE and REVIEW ARTICLE formats.

These articles document original research or a literature review in depth.

Submissions are not limited to a specific number of words or display items. However, they typically do not exceed c. 30 pages of typeset manuscript and should be well structured and written concisely. Authors can submit supplementary files to document additional explanatory text, figures, tables, media files or other files that provide useful, though not essential, information. Any information or data essential to understanding the line of argument and conclusions developed in the manuscript should be presented in the main text.

These manuscripts may be rather specialist in nature and should be of interest to scientists in the field. Reviewers should consider the overall quality and readability, alongside the scientific merits of the article as described in our publication criteria.

Requested return time for comments: four weeks.

Download the review questionnaire for these formats here.

To the top




A MONOGRAPH is a substantial, single-volume work that documents new research or collates, and reviews, published research. It often comprises many years, decades even, of data collection and typically offers a comprehensive, overview of a topic.

The manuscript should be well written, as concise as possible and follow a logical structure. All materials and methods should be documented.

Reviewers should consider the quality of the work presented and its scientific merit in line with our publication criteria. Also, consider whether the manuscript warrants publication in this format, or whether it should be reduced in length or published as separate, shorter articles. In addition to our general publication criteria, reviewers should consider whether the conclusions and insights presented are likely to stand the test of time and make a substantial contribution to the field in years to come.

Requested return time for comments: six to eight weeks.

Download the review questionnaire for this format here.

To the top



Map descriptions

A MAP DESCRIPTION comprises a descriptive text to a published geological map sheet produced by GEUS and covering Denmark or Greenland. These submissions typically follow a standard structure, as detailed in the submission template.

The text must correspond to a published map, which should be made available to the reviewer alongside the manuscript. Reviews should consider whether the text is an accurate representation of the published map and adheres to the standard format expected of this type of submission, as described in the submission template. The review should identify any important information that is incomplete or missing, as well as judge the scientific merit and overall quality of the written manuscript.

Requested return time for comments: six to eight weeks.

Download the review questionnaire for this format here.

To the top



Recommendation (assessment decision)

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.

To the top



Competing interests

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 their ability to return an unbiased review.

Instances of undisclosed conflict of interest will be handled according to the guidelines outlined by COPE.

To the top


Advice for new reviewers

If this is your first-time peer-reviewing a scholarly article, or you would like advice for how to conduct a thorough review, we recommend reading our guide for first-time reviewers

If you have any questions at any stage of the review process, please contact the editor handling the submission or the editorial office at

To the top