Instructions for reviewers:
After accepting to review the manuscript you receive the confirmation e-mail with the link to access the manuscript and the instructions for reviewers.
If you are already registered in the editorial system (as author, reviewer or handling editor), log in using your e-mail address and password. If you forgot your password, click on „Forgotten password“ and follow the instructions.
If you are new in our editorial system, fill the form „NEW REVIEWER“. After registration, you receive the e-mail with your login data and another e-mail with the instructions for reviewers.
To submit your review log in the editorial system using the link from the confirmation e-mail. You can also log in using the link LOGIN in the top right corner of the Geologica Carpathica webpage.
After login you can reach the manuscript in the left panel by clicking on "My reviewed manuscrips" in "REVIEWER MENU". Then click on "TAKE ACTION" in the table with title of the manuscript.
In order to successfully submit your review, you have to attach the review file (only 1 file – pdf, doc or docx) and you have to summarize your recommendation in the pop-up window. After the successful submission, you should be directed to the page with „THANK YOU FOR SUBMITTING YOUR REVIEW“.
When reviewing the MS please consider following questions - you will be able to answer these questions online (if you have problem with the electronic editorial system, you can send your review and the checklist by e-mail):
Does the title inform about the findings or implications of this paper?
Is the abstract informative and concise enough for a general audience?
Are the objectives of this manuscript clearly stated in Introduction?
Are the methods appropriate and clearly explained?
Are the interpretations justified?
Are all figures and tables readable and of sufficiently high quality and is the map with the study area included?
Do you think that this manuscript can be shorter or the number of figure or tables can be smaller?
Do the authors refer to the previous papers sufficiently?
Is the reference list complete?
Please briefly explain (in one or two sentences):
Why is this paper of general interest?
Why are the results and interpretations of this paper noteworthy?