Physical Geography Research

Reviewer guidance and responsibilities

Physical Geography Research thanks reviewers for their contribution to scholarly assessment. Pre-publication review is double-blind. Eligible manuscripts are assessed by at least two independent reviewers after initial screening; the responsible editor makes the final decision.

Before accepting an invitation

Assess your subject expertise, ability to report within the stated deadline, and any financial, personal or professional conflict of interest. Disclose conflicts to the editor and decline if they compromise impartiality or you cannot assess the work. Request any deadline extension through the journal office.

Confidentiality and independence

Manuscripts and review correspondence are confidential. Do not use unpublished data or ideas for personal advantage, seek the identity of blinded authors, or delegate the review without editorial permission. Do not upload confidential manuscripts, data or files to public AI tools or external services.

Preparing a scientific report

Assess scope, originality and contribution, literature, research design, data and methods, reproducibility, validity of analysis, support for conclusions, limitations, Persian and English abstracts, figures, tables and references. Separate major and minor points, identify the relevant section or page, and provide reasoned, actionable suggestions. Use respectful language and judge the scientific quality of the work.

Integrity concerns

Report concerns about plagiarism, manipulated data or images, redundant publication, permits or review integrity confidentially to the editor with supporting evidence; do not contact authors directly. A similarity percentage alone does not establish misconduct. Citation requests must be relevant and justified; coercive requests intended to increase personal or journal citations are unacceptable.

Submitting the report and reassessment

Manage invitations and reports through your reviewer account. Distinguish comments for authors from confidential comments for the editor; do not identify yourself in comments visible to authors. Recommendations to accept, revise or reject must follow from the report. When reassessing a revision, examine the authors’ responses and changes. A reviewer recommendation is not the final editorial decision.

Peer review process | Publication ethics and malpractice | Aims and scope | Journal office

For a documented correction to your displayed name, expertise or affiliation, contact jphgr@ut.ac.ir. The public list does not identify the reviewers of any specific manuscript.