Papers submitted to GAIA are subjected to double-blind expert peer review. Papers submitted to the Research section are, additionally, cross-read by at least one person foreign to the subject. Invited papers are subjected to the same reviewing process and an invitation is no guarantee of publication. Currently, the rejection rate is about 50 to 60 percent.
GAIA has a quick turnaround and minimizes time from submission to publication. Usually reviewers take about three week's time to conduct their reviews. Over-all turnaround time for evaluation of manuscripts, including the Editor's decision as well as a list of hints for the revision, normally does not exceed five months from the date of receipt.
Reviewers are recruited according to their expertise. Non-expert readers are mostly members of GAIA's Scientific Advisory Board.
Articles published in GAIA are chosen for their scientific content as well as their ease of comprehension and significance to readers of various scientific disciplines.
1. Factual statements need to be scientifically proven: All factual statements, propositions, and analytical causal relations that are mentioned in the manuscript need to be scientifically proven. However, ideas, concepts, and relationships may be unusual and innovative.
2. Articles need to be up to date and relate to current problems: The article should relate to a current debate in science (but then relate to an action that will follow from it) or to politics.
3. Logical coherence, consistency, accountability, linguistic and stylistic quality: The article needs to justify poignant opinions, questions, or conclusions. Those justifications should be easy to follow, logical, and fair towards arguments that contradict the statements. Achieving this also largely depends on the style and linguistic standard of the article.
4. Clear statements with a provocative or inquisitive character: The Forum aims to encourage a deeper reflection on a subject, and aims to motivate readers to react and respond to the articles. Frequently, we deliberately try to find articles that give pros and cons. The ideal article is an article that has a provocative message, that is based on good science, and that explains its argumentation in a way that is easy to follow.
Please consider as well the >guidelines for reviewers of Forum papers (pdf)
All articles are subjected to a double-blind peer review and cross-read by at least one person foreign to the subject.
Expert opinions are based on
The non-expert reviewer will evaluate the transdisciplinarity of the synthesis, relevance in terms of action and comprehensibility of the manuscript.
Additionally to the criteria listed above, the reviewers of Design Reports are asked to evaluate the presentation and discussion of the project's research design and communication design as well as their critical reflection, and whether the Design Report advances the knowledge of setting-up and implementing inter-/transdisciplinary projects.
Please consider as well the >guidelines for expert reviewers of Research papers/Design Reports (pdf) and non-expert reviewers of Research papers/Design Reports (pdf-file).
The editorial board would like to thank all reviewers for their valuable and valued contributions, which help to support the high quality of GAIA. As a symbolic recognition of the work, GAIA publishes at the beginning of each new year a list of individuals who contributed a review in the previous year.
List of reviewers >2019
Show list of all announcements ...
GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society | ISSN 0940-5550 | eISSN 2625-5413Articles in GAIA are published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license CC BY 4.0.Published with