About the Journal

a) print unpublished works of critical review on subjects relevant to geography and related areas as well as results from empirical, experimental or conceptual research;

b) encourage the exchange of experiences in its specialty with other Brazilian or foreign institutions that maintain similar publications;

To continue its publishing activity and make its content available to larger extents of the academic community, Geo UERJ turned out to be an electronic journal in 2006.

Its target audience is researchers, teachers, professionals and students interested in the field of geography and related fields.

EVALUATION BOARD AND AD HOC REVIEWERS

Evaluation board includes professors and/or researchers from Brazilian and foreigner universities and research institutions. Its aim is to provide technical review of works submitted to be published in Geo UERJ. This is the procedure to choose ad hoc reviewers as well. Editors and scientific board will point out evaluation board members and ad hoc reviewers.

Attributions of evaluation board members and ad hoc reviewers

a) To provide review report of works submitted to Geo UERJ in accordance with their areas of specialization and/or affinity.

b) To present review report of works under reviewing by filling in the Academic Work Reviewing form.

c) To give written suggestions of bettering for works accepted for publication but needing improvements.

d) To ground and/or justify technical reviews in accordance with their specialization and/or affinity area.

e) To proofread occasionally texts typed during the process of making the journal.

f) To fulfill review report deadline rigorously.

Members of the evaluation board and ad hoc reviewers who fail to fulfill the deadline twice, no matter if it is consecutively or alternatively, will be replaced automatically. The name of the reviewer will be excluded from Geo UERJ list of ad hoc reviewers. If the reviewer joins the evaluation board, then she or he may be withdrawn from the board.

Geo UERJ publishes works that received two favorable reviews from two reviewers chosen in accordance with their field of specialization and/or affinity with the work’s theme and content under reviewing. In case of discordant reviews (one favorable and one non-favorable), the decision to publish is up to the editorial board. A third reviewer may evaluate the work as well.

Reviewers have the right to give a favorable review to a work demanding reformulations, to present suggestions to improve it, and to suggest its editing after its reformulation, as long as editing changes do not affect the work content.

Review report on papers and other works must be readable and show a critical judgment of them, so that to reveal their academic relevance. Reviewers that suggest improvements in a given work must highlight paragraphs and/or pages requiring changes as the case may be.

Reviewers have a maximum of thirty consecutive calendar days after receiving a paper to deliver their review report to the editorial board.

This period may prolonged for more or less than thirty consecutive calendar days according to the editorial board and without delaying the journal making and circulation. Extending the deadline requires that reviewers submit a written request to the editorial board.

Even considering the postponement abovementioned, reviewers who could not fulfill the deadline to deliver review report because of unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances must inform in writing the editorial board and request replacement.

EVALUATION PROCESS

The editor will submit the article to the evaluation of at least two reviewers for the checking out of originality, scientific relevance, correctness, clarity, and figures’ graphic quality, among other aspects. In case of discordant reviews, it is up to the editorial board the decision of publishing the work or submitting it to a third reviewer. The peer-review lasts on average from 60 to 120 days. Reviewers may point out the following publishing recommendations: a) article accepted for publication; b) article accepted for publication with corrections; c) article refused. In case of option “b”, authors have thirty calendar days after being informed of the decision of publishing. According to the editorial board, this period is extensible for an equal or shorter time. To obtain more time, authors must send a written request to editorial board. After the submission of the corrected text, corrections may be reviewed again or evaluated directly by the scientific council.

This journal offers open access to content following the philosophy of making scientific knowledge freely available to the general public with the aim of contributing to global democratization of knowledge.