REVIEWERS GUIDELINES

Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review plays a crucial role in aiding editors with editorial decisions, and through constructive feedback, it can help authors enhance their geotechnical engineering manuscripts.

Speed: Each selected reviewer is expected to expedite the review process, thus facilitating timely publications and supporting geotechnical researchers in their dissemination efforts.

Reviewer reviews: Reviews should be conducted impartially and objectively, with clear analytical insights supported by well-founded arguments related to the study’s geotechnical engineering aspects.

Confidentiality: Any manuscript received for review must be treated as confidential and should only be discussed with those authorized by the editor, with special attention to maintaining the integrity of the geotechnical research presented.

Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and subjective judgment may arise during the editorial process, but to ensure high-quality contributions to geotechnical engineering, we value the professionalism of all parties involved in the journal’s management.

HOW TO REVIEW

Presentation: Does the paper present a cohesive argument relevant to geotechnical engineering? Are the ideas clearly articulated?

Writing: Does the title accurately reflect the geotechnical study? Is the writing concise and easy to understand, particularly for technical audiences?

Length: Which sections of the paper require expansion? What content should be removed, condensed, summarized, or combined to strengthen the paper's focus on geotechnical principles?

Title: Is the title succinct and reflective of the paper's primary geotechnical result or conclusion? Avoid abbreviations in the title.

Abstract: Does the abstract include 1) the aim of the geotechnical study; 2) the method; 3) the result or finding; and 4) the conclusion?

Introduction: Clearly outline the following:

  • Background of the geotechnical problem or study;
  • The state of the art and relevant research, establishing the novelty in geotechnics;
  • A gap analysis and statement of novelty;
  • Hypothesis or problem statement (if applicable);
  • Approach taken to address the geotechnical problem;
  • The aim of the study.

Method: The methodology should be described clearly to allow replication in geotechnical experiments or analyses with similar outcomes. It should include not only term definitions but also how the research was conducted, including location, participants (if applicable), geotechnical instrumentation, and data analysis techniques.

Results and Discussion:

  • Present processed data in tables or figures, with clear descriptions that are easy to follow.
  • Relate the results to the original geotechnical objectives outlined in the Introduction.
  • Discuss whether the results are consistent with or deviate from findings by other geotechnical researchers.
  • Provide scientific interpretations for each result or finding.
  • Discuss the implications for geotechnical engineering.
  • Identify limitations of the study or weaknesses in methodology.
  • Suggest areas for further geotechnical research or expansion of ideas.

Conclusion:

The conclusion should:

  • Answer the research objectives;
  • Provide implications or recommendations, if applicable;
  • Be written as a coherent paragraph rather than in bullet points or numbered lists.