Peer Review

Papers submitted to GAIA are subjected to double-blind expert peer review. Papers submitted to the Research section are, additionally, cross-read by a so-called "non-expert" reviewer with expertise in a field outside the article’s subject. Invited papers are subjected to the same review­ing process and an invita­tion is no guarantee of publication. Currently, the rejection rate is about 50 to 60 percent.

Reviewers are selected for their expertise. Non-expert reviewers are mostly members of GAIA's Scientific Advisory Board. Reviewers provide critical feedback to ensure quality and relevance.
Peer reviewers

  • should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any one of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscripts.
  • should give a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the manuscript. All judgments and findings in the peer review process should be evidence based.
  • should sustain their critique by pointing to relevant published work.
  • must treat all information from manuscripts under review confidentially before publication, or in the event that the manuscript is rejected
  • should not use AI tools to write reviews or parts of reviews in order to prevent biased or inaccurate evaluations. If AI tools, including translation and grammar correction tools, are used at any stage of the review process, confidentiality must be maintained. Reviewers are also required to disclose the use of these AI tools to the journal, specifying which tools were used and how they were applied..

Usually reviewers take about three week's time to conduct their reviews.

Articles published in GAIA are chosen for their scientific content as well as their ease of comprehension and significance to readers of various scientific disciplines.

Review criteria for Forum papers

1. Scholarly quality: All factual statements, propositions, and causal relations that are mentioned in the manuscript need to be based on scientific insights, evidence or well-documented experience. However, the ideas, concepts, and relationships proposed may be unusual and innovative.

2. Topicality: Articles need to be up to date and relate to current problems: The authors should refer to relevant previous research and sources. The article should either add to an ongoing debate or present new concepts, ideas, and/or theses in order to spark a new discussion.

3. Sound argumentation: The argumentation must be consistent and sound. For value statements, underlying assumptions should be made explicit and explained in their respective epistemological and socio-cultural context.

4. Relevance. Authors should critically engage with the relevance of their own contribution for a transformation towards sustainability, taking into account the scale and temporal dimension of the challenge, and drawing explicit and substantial conclusions for science, practice, or policy.

5. Clear statements with a provocative or inquisitive character: The Forum aims to encourage deeper reflection on a subject, to spark debate, and to motivate readers to react and respond. Frequently, we try to find Forum articles that give pros and cons. 

6. Reflexivity: Authors should reflect their contribution with an awareness of the particular challenges facing environmental or sustainability issues, often including high ambiguity, controversy, and value-laden problem framings.

7. Accessibility: Articles need to be written in a way that is appropriate for a dialogue with the intended audience (e.g., science-policy interface, discourse within academia, ...). The writing style should be clear and concise, avoiding specialist jargon.

Please consider as well the >guidelines for reviewers of Forum papers (pdf)

Review criteria for research papers, Design Reports, and review papers

All articles are subjected to a double-blind peer review and by a so-called "non-expert" reviewer with expertise in a field outside the article’s subject.

Expert opinions are based on

  • the article’s scientific quality (e.g., theory, methods, literature relevant to the subject),
  • the quality of presentation (e.g., length, conciseness, style),
  • the novelty of empirical data, methods, theoretical analyses, interpretation and approaches to problem-solving,
  • the article’s relevance for environmental sciences.

The non-expert reviewers reflect GAIA’s transdisciplinary scope and diverse audience. Their role is to evaluate whether the manuscript engages an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary readership and offers practical insights. They assess its relevance to sustainability transformation, including policy and action implications, while ensuring it is clear and comprehensible. This process ensures the article is accessible, broadly applicable, and actionable..

Additionally to the criteria listed above, the reviewers of Design Reports are asked to evaluate the presentation and discussion of the project's research design and communication design as well as their critical reflection, and whether the Design Report advances the knowledge of setting-up and implementing inter-/transdisciplinary projects.

Please consider as well the >guidelines for expert reviewers of Research papers/Design Reports (pdf) and non-expert reviewers of Research papers/Design Reports (pdf-file).

Acknowledgement of reviewers

The editorial board would like to thank all reviewers for their valuable and valued contributions, which help to support the high quality of GAIA. As a token of appreciation, at the beginning of each year GAIA publishes a list of individuals who have contributed a review in the previous year.

List of reviewers >2023