Review Procedure
A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial office of Georesursy.

1.Members of the editorial board and experts in the article’s corresponding areas invited as independent readers, perform peer reviews. Timescales of peer reviewing are defined separately for each article for highest possible fast publication of the article. They should be sufficient for deep analysis of submitted material and are pre-agreed with the author. 
We aim to limit the review process to 8-16 weeks, though in some cases the schedule may be adjusted at the reviewer’s request. 

With the consideration of the declared research subject the article is sent to the specialist who determines:
• Scientific novelty of the provisions contained in the article;
• Relevance of the studied problem;
• Theoretical and practical importance of research results;
• Authenticity of research results test;
• Compliance of the article content with the declared title of the subject;
• Finding out published papers concerning research topic, not mentioned in the manuscript.

2.Upon the scrutiny, the reviewer is expected to present the editorial board with one of the following recommendations: 
a) to accept the paper in its present state; 
b) to invite the author to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before final decision is reached; 
c) that final decision be reached following further reviewing by another specialist; 
d) to reject the manuscript outright.

3.If the reviewer has recommended any refinements, the editorial office would suggest the author either to implement the corrections, or to dispute them reasonably. Authors are kindly required to limit their revision to 2 months and resubmit the adapted manuscript within this period for second review.

4.If author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the editorial office is authorized to send the article for additional review. The editor-in-chief resolves the conflict by his own authority.

5.The editor-in-chief reaches final decision to reject a manuscript on the hearing according to reviewers’ recommendations, and duly notifies the authors of their decision via e-mail. The editorial office does not accept previously rejected manuscripts for re-evaluation.

6.Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as final decision in all cases lies with the editor-in-chief.

7.After the decision made by the editorial board on admission of article executive secretary informs the author and notes the date of publication.

8.Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 5 years.