About the Journal

Peer Review Process

 Articles, Discussions, Technical and Scientific Notes are open for submission from the community. Discussions, Technical and Scientific Notes will be reviewed by the editors. The submitted articles will undergo the following peer review process:

1. The papers will be submitted to the critical analysis of at least two (2) consultants. In the case of a tie (when one review accepts the article and another rejects it for publication) the analysis of a third consultant will be required.
2. The list with the most frequent consultants is available in the site. Geonomos reserves the right, however, to send the work to other consultants not listed there.
3. The consultants will receive the manuscripts with the identification of the authors.
4. Processing time of manuscripts:

• Consultants will have 5 days to accept or not to analyze manuscript. If accepted, they will have 30 days to perform the analysis.
• The authors will have 20 days, from the date of sending the revisions, to make the necessary corrections and adjustments in the manuscript.
• Articles with minor corrections of form and / or content: After the manuscript is corrected by the authors, the corrections will be checked by the editors.
• Articles with important corrections of form and / or content: The manuscript with the corrections should be returned to the consultants (via editors), who will have 20 days to evaluate the corrections and may suggest new corrections or opt for their acceptance for publication.
• Reading and proofreading: After the acceptance and the layout of the manuscript, the manuscript will be returned to the authors for reading and proofreading, which should be done within 48 hours.

  

Periodicity

 Geonomos has a semiannual periodicity, with the publication of an annual volume with two editions. The works will be published in digital format, and will be available on the journal's website.

  

Free Access Policy

 Geonomos offers free and immediate access to its content, in the understanding that the free provision of knowledge is essential to the advancement of science. All the published works can be downloaded in PDF format, in the journal's website.

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice statement

 Our practice of Publication Ethics and Publication Malpracticeis primarily based on the COPE's Core Practices  (Committee on Publication Ethics, 2017).

Editor’s Responsibilities

Publication decisions

The editor is responsible for deciding which of the papers submitted to the journal will be published. The editor will evaluate manuscripts without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnicity, citizenship or political philosophy. The decision will be based on the importance, originality and clarity of the article and on the validity of the study and its relevance to the scope of the journal. The current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism should also be considered.

Confidentiality

The editor and any member of the editorial team should not disclose any information about a manuscript submitted to someone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial consultants, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted article will not be used by the publisher or editorial board members for research purposes without the explicit written consent of the author.

Reviewer’s Responsibilities

Contribution to editorial decisions

The peer review process assists the editor and editorial board in making editorial decisions and can also serve the author in improving the work.

Promptness

Any selected reviewer who feels disqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that their immediate review will be impossible should notify the publisher and withdraw from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review should be treated as confidential documents. They should not be disclosed or discussed with others except as authorized by the publisher.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Any personal criticism of the author will be considered inappropriate. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly with supporting arguments.

Recognition of sources

Reviewers should identify cases where any relevant published work mentioned in the document was not cited in the bibliographic references section. They should indicate if observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective citation to the source. The reviewers shall notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published article of which they are personally acquainted.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts where they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions associated with the documents.

Author’s duties

Reporting Standards

Authors should provide an accurate account of their work, as well as an objective discussion of their significance. The underlying data should be accurately represented in the article. An article should contain enough details and references to allow others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Access and retention of data

Authors may be required to provide the raw data of their study together with the editorial review document and must be prepared to make the data publicly available, if practicable. In any case, authors should ensure the accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication (preferably through an institutional or issue-based repository or other data center), provided that the confidentiality of be protected and protected.

Originality, plagiarism and recognition of sources

Authors will only submit entirely original works (in the case of scientific articles) and will properly cite the work and / or text of other authors. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work should also be cited.

Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publication

In general, articles that essentially describe the same research should not be published in more than one journal. Submitting the same article to more than one journal constitutes unethical publication behavior and is unacceptable. Manuscripts that have been published as copyrighted material in other places can not be submitted. In addition, manuscripts under review in the journal should not be resubmitted to copyrighted publications.

Article Authorship

Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the design, implementation, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author ensures that all contributing co-authors are included in the list of authors. The corresponding author will also check that all the co-authors have approved the final version of the work and have agreed to submit it for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors must include a statement disclosing any financial or other conflicts of interest that may be interpreted as influencing the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published work

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his own published work, it is the author's obligation to immediately notify the publisher of the journal or the publisher and cooperate with the publisher to remove or correct the document in the form of an errata.