Review guidelines

 Reviewer Guidelines for the scholarly journal Coastal Resilience and Sustainability

 Coastal Resilience and Sustainability is a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary diamond open-access journal created within the EU-CONEXUS ENABLES project. The journal is developed in collaboration with a consortium of European universities, including the University of Zadar (Croatia), Technical University of Civil Engineering Bucharest (Romania), Frederick University (Cyprus), Agricultural University of Athens (Greece), Klaipeda University (Lithuania), La Rochelle Université (France), South East Technological University (Ireland), Catholic University of Valencia (Spain), and the University of Rostock (Germany).

This journal primarily addresses researchers and academic staff from these partner universities. However, we warmly welcome contributions from all researchers, academics, and research groups outside the consortium who are interested in the journal’s scope.

We encourage submission of high-quality original articles and invite researchers worldwide to contribute as reviewers, fostering a robust and collaborative scientific community.

General principles of the peer review

Peer review is a mandatory step for maintaining high scientific standards and ensuring integrity, accuracy, and relevance in research. Our journal adheres strictly to ethical guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We invite reviewers from diverse backgrounds and particularly encourage the involvement of early-career researchers under the mentorship of senior reviewers.

Responsibilities of the reviewers:

  1. Conduct reviews objectively, respectfully, and constructively.
  2. Provide feedback within the specified deadline.
  3. Declare any potential conflicts of interest at the earliest possible stage.
  4. Maintain confidentiality, no sharing of manuscripts or discussing of content outside the review process.
  5. Use of AI tools (e.g., LLMs) to assist with manuscript evaluation should be explicitly declared and thoroughly checked.
  6. Ensure reviews are fair, balanced, and supported by clear, objective reasoning.

Reviewing process

We strongly recommend that reviewers approach the review process with seriousness and diligence, as their evaluations significantly impact the scientific quality and integrity of the journal. To ensure a thorough and fair assessment, reviewers are encouraged to follow these structured steps:

Step 1: Initial evaluation

Skim the manuscript to form an overall impression. Identify if the manuscript makes a significant, novel contribution relevant to the journal’s themes: coastal resilience, sustainability, environmental management, climate change adaptation, renewable energy, smart communities, and other topics listed on the journal website. Note initial concerns related to originality, clarity, methodology, data presentation, or critical omissions.

Step 2: Detailed review - Provide a clear and structured review focusing on:

     1. Title and abstract:

  • Is the title clearly reflecting the manuscript's content and main findings?
  • Does the abstract adequately summarize the main objectives, methodology, key results, and conclusions?
  • Can readers easily grasp the significance and novelty of the study from the abstract?

      2.  Introduction and objectives:

  • Does the introduction clearly outline the context, relevance, and rationale for the research?
  • Are the research goals, objectives, and questions clearly defined?
  • Does the introduction adequately cover the existing literature and clearly identify gaps the manuscript aims to fill?

    3. Novelty and impact:

  • Does the paper present original research or significantly advance existing knowledge?
  • Is the research relevant and impactful to coastal resilience and sustainability?

    4. Methodology and reproducibility:

  • Are the methods described clearly enough for other researchers to replicate the study?
  • Is the research robust, using adequate controls, statistical analyses, and validation procedures?
  • Are ethical standards clearly outlined and respected?

     5. Data analysis and presentation:

  • Are data clearly presented, consistent, and sufficient in the context of the article?
  • Do figures, tables, and graphs clearly and effectively illustrate key results?

     6. Results and discussion:

  • Do the authors clearly state their findings?
  • Is the discussion logically presented, well-supported, and effectively contextualized within the existing literature?
  • Do authors adequately address potential limitations or alternative interpretations?

     7. Conclusions:

  • Are the conclusions clearly justified by the presented evidence?
  • Are conclusions concise, relevant, and directly related to the study’s aims?

     8. References:

  • Assess if references are accurate, comprehensive, balanced, and current.
  • Identify any critical missing literature.

Manuscript types and specific considerations:

  1. Original Research Papers: Significant novel contributions with clear and robust methodology. Data and results must be thoroughly validated and discussed in detail.
  2. Review Papers: Comprehensive, balanced, and updated synthesis of existing research. Evaluate accessibility and clarity for a broad scientific audience.
  3. Technical papers and resources: New or significantly improved techniques applicable to coastal resilience. Clear and detailed descriptions enabling reproducibility.
  4. Professional papers, Conference papers, and Case studies: Practical relevance, well-supported by literature, clear lessons learned. Must include detailed methodological descriptions allowing replication.
  5. Preliminary reports: Brief, original insights with immediate relevance and impact.

Ethical considerations: Evaluate if ethical standards are adhered to, including data integrity, conflicts of interest, and research involving humans or the environment. Immediately notify editors if plagiarism or any other ethical concerns arise. All submissions must pass the threshold of 12% of match in the plagiarism-detection tool, such as Turnitin or similar.

Confidential comments to editors: Reserved strictly for ethical concerns, suspected misconduct, plagiarism, or conflicts of interest.

Decision recommendations:

  1. Accept: Manuscript is ready for publication without further scientific changes.
  2. Minor Revisions: Requires minor improvements or clarifications.
  3. Major Revisions: Significant changes needed; may require additional rounds of review.
  4. Reject: Fundamental flaws in research validity, originality, or methodology.

Communication of reviews:

Reviews are confidential, but reviewers may choose to disclose their identity.

Comments provided to authors should be professional, clear, and constructive.

Reviewers' reports may be shared anonymously among reviewers post-decision for transparency and consistency.

Confidentiality and conflict of interest:

Manuscripts must remain confidential throughout the review process.

Declare any potential conflict of interest immediately to the editors.

Do not use manuscript data or ideas in your work before publication.