The practice of peer review is to ensure that only good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out by all reputable journals. Our reviewers therefore play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of Journal of Arid Land and all published manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.

Initial manuscript evaluation

The Editors screen all new submissions and submit the editorial comments to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief further evaluates all submissions before deciding if they should be rejected or assigned to the reviewers for peer review. Those that rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the criteria for peer review are passed on to one Editor to invite at least two expert reviewers to review the manuscripts.

Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will normally be informed within one week, latest within two weeks of receipt.

Type of Peer Review

The Journal of Arid Land employs double-blind review, where both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous throughout the process.

The peer review process

Reviewers are matched to the manuscript according to their country, methodological and contents area expertise. Our reviewer database contains reviewer contact details together with their subject areas of interest, and this is constantly being updated. We welcome suggestions for reviewers from authors, though these recommendations may not necessarily be used.

Reviewer reports

Reviewers are asked to evaluate a manuscript for:

- originality and significance of contribution

- adequacy and logicality of methodology and analysis

- readability (clear, concise, and completeness)

- interesting results that are clearly presented and support the conclusions

- correctly references previous relevant work

Reviewers are asked to provide both comments to the editor as well as anonymous comments/recommendations to the authors.

Reviewers are not expected to correct or copy edit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process.

How long does the peer review process take?

Typically, the manuscript will be reviewed within three months from submission date. Should the reviewers’ reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed a further expert opinion will be sought. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the journal within four weeks and the Editor-in-Chief and Editors may request further advice from the reviewers at this time. The Editor-in-Chief and Editors may request more than one revision of a manuscript.

The decision

The Editors will make recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief based on the reviewers’ comments, and the Editor-in-Chief will do the final decision: accept, reject, or revision. This decision will be sent to the authors along with any recommendations made by the reviewers.

Resubmission

If the author is invited to resubmit after a major revision, the revised version should be submitted within four weeks. If necessary, revised manuscripts may be returned to the initial reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief and Editors may request more than one revision of a manuscript, and alternative reviewers may also be invited to review the manuscript at any time.

Becoming a Reviewer for the Journal of Arid Land

If you are not currently a reviewer for the Journal of Arid Land but would like to be considered as a reviewer for this Journal, please contact the editorial office by e-mail at xjja@ms.xjb.ac.cn, and provide your contact details. If your request is approved and you are added to the online reviewer database, you will receive a confirmatory email, asking you to add details on your field of expertise, in the format of subject classifications.