Geologica Carpathica

Journal info (provided by editor)

Issues per year
6
Articles published last year
35
Manuscripts received last year
71
% accepted last year
45
% immediately rejected last year
31
Open access status
open access
Manuscript handling fee?
no
Kind of complaint procedure
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.

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 11 reviews)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 2.5 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 3.5 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection n/a compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 2.5 compare →
Average number of review rounds 2.0 compare →
Quality of review reports 4.4 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 3.5 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 4.5 (range 0-5) compare →

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.