Menu Close


Review Process

This journal follows a double anonymized review process. Initially, the editor evaluates all contributions to determine their suitability for publication in the journal. If a paper is considered suitable, it is typically sent to at least two independent expert reviewers who assess its scientific quality. The ultimate decision to accept or reject articles lies with the Editor, and this decision is final. Editors do not participate in decisions regarding papers they have authored themselves, those written by their family members or colleagues, or those related to products or services in which the editor has a vested interest. Such submissions undergo the journal’s standard procedures, with peer review conducted independently of the relevant editor and their research groups.

Editorial Policy

J-MONT places significant emphasis on maintaining the recognized high quality of its peer-reviewed process. Contributions are expected to be contemporary, offering scientific insights, methodological innovations, and employing disciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary approaches. They should also be pertinent to the promotion of sustainable mountain development and policy.

Manuscripts submitted for publication in J-MONT must not have been previously published elsewhere. Papers should present their arguments and evidence in a clear and concise manner. Authors from various regions across the globe, including developing countries, are encouraged to contribute.

Reviewers evaluating papers are asked to assess the manuscript’s novelty, scholarly rigor, readability, and its relevance to mountain regions and sustainable development. Additionally, reviewers of J-MONT papers are expected to evaluate the practical value of the insights presented and/or, pertinence of the research or policy agenda.

Review Process

Every manuscript submitted to J-MONT undergoes a thorough and confidential review process. We follow a double-blind approach, ensuring that both the authors’ identities and the reviewers’ identities remain undisclosed unless explicitly requested by the reviewers. Each manuscript is evaluated by a minimum of two reviewers.

Download Reviewers Report Format for reviewing articles

Review Process Contact

Reviewers are requested to send their reviews to the following e-mail address:

Reviewer Recommendations

The reviewers are asked to answer the questions listed in the Reviewer Report and give an overall recommendation for the submission (minor revision, major revision, accept, reject, etc.).

If reviewers would like to provide comments directly in the manuscript in addition to addressing the review questions from the Reviewer Report, they can do so using PDF or Word format. However, it’s crucial to ensure that your identity remains confidential in your comments.

Possible Recommendations for Manuscripts

ACCEPT: This recommendation is appropriate when the manuscript is a valuable contribution to the relevant field of research, and no revisions are necessary except for very minor language corrections, which can be addressed during the copyediting stage.

ACCEPT with MINOR REVISIONS: This recommendation is suitable when the manuscript is a valuable contribution but requires minor revisions before publication. Please provide explicit guidance on the revisions needed so that both the authors and editors understand what changes are required. The review of the revised manuscript will be handled by the editorial team.

ACCEPT with MAJOR REVISIONS: Use this recommendation when the manuscript has the potential to be valuable but requires significant revisions before publication. Clearly outline the major revisions required so that the authors and editors have a clear understanding of what needs to be addressed. The editors may later request you to evaluate the revised manuscript to determine if the authors adequately addressed the reviewers’ concerns.

REJECT: This recommendation is appropriate when the manuscript does not have the potential to make a valuable contribution to the relevant field of research. Provide a comprehensive rationale for your decision but do not include recommendations for revising the article. Authors will receive the peer reviewers’ comments and rationale but will not be invited to resubmit their manuscript.

REJECT WITH POSSIBILITY OF RESUBMISSION: Use this recommendation when the manuscript has the potential to be valuable but requires extensive revisions, necessitating a fresh peer review process. Clearly outline the revisions required so that both the authors and editors understand what changes are necessary. Authors will be asked to resubmit the manuscript for a new review, and you may be requested to re-review it to assess the sufficiency of the revisions for publication.