Journal info (provided by editor)

% accepted last year
45% accepted
% immediately rejected last year
31% imm. rejected
Articles published last year
35 articles
Manuscripts received last year
71 manuscripts
Open access status
open access
Manuscript handling fee
none

Impact factors (provided by editor)

Two-year impact factor
1.62
Five-year impact factor
1.46

About

Geologica Carpathica covers a wide spectrum of geological disciplines including geodynamics, tectonics and structural geology, volcanology, stratigraphy, geochronology and isotopic geology, karstology, geochemistry, mineralogy, petrology, lithology and sedimentology, paleogeography, paleoecology, paleobiology and paleontology, paleomagnetism, magnetostratigraphy and other branches of applied geophysics, economic and environmental geology, experimental and theoretical geoscientific studies. Geologica Carpathica, with its 60 year old tradition, presents high-quality research papers devoted to all aspects not only of the Alpine-Carpathian-Balkanian geoscience but also with adjacent regions originated from the Mediterranean Tethys and its continental foreland.

Duration of manuscript handling phases

Duration first review round
2.5 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
3.5 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
2.0 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
3.5 / 5.0 (difficult)
Average number of review reports
2.5 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
4.4 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
4.5 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 9.0 weeks. Overall rating: 5 (excellent). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
Since the beginning review process was correct; the associate editor asked three recognized experts in the field for a review. I have received 3 constructive reviews together with an evaluation and recommendations from the associate editor within 2 months. I prepared corrected version and Response letter during a month. The associate editor after receiving a positive feedback from the addressed reviewers recommended to the Editorial board acceptance of this paper. I must say that the Review process was transparent and objective.