Review Process

All submissions are evaluated through single-blind peer review. Each submission is assigned to a handling editor who oversees the review process and selects appropriate reviewers with relevant expertise.

Based on the reviewers’ reports and their own assessment, the handling editor makes a recommendation regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript.

There are three main criteria for acceptance. First, the results that are presented must be new and interesting. Second, the submission must be carefully prepared. Third, the topic should be within scope. Failure on either of these criteria leads to a recommendation to reject the paper, with a short but clear motivation. Any helpful comments to the authors are very welcome.

The first criterion, new and interesting, is somewhat subjective. It can be judged by any sufficiently senior researcher in the area of computational geometry and topology and its applications. A guideline may be: do you think the paper is a worthwhile read for the readers of the journal? Does it add sufficiently much to the state of the art? If the results appeared in a conference proceedings before, then the journal submission should state this. 

The second criterion, careful preparation, suggests that reviewers should not do the work that authors could have done themselves, namely providing a good structure, good illustrations, good layout, good language, consistent notation and choices, and so on and so forth. For example, if many figures are poor to the extent that the authors should have noticed this themselves, then a review can be short, pointing out where the submission fails on the criterion of careful preparation. Unlike a conference version, a journal version must be complete. Proofs may not be omitted, descriptions of algorithms must be sufficiently detailed, and experiments must be extensive enough.

The third criterion, within scope, is sometimes also subjective. We aim to be inclusive, and allow submissions that are not mainstream but still somewhat within scope. In these cases, the authors must have made an effort to provide the link of their results with the scope of the journal. It is up to the reviewer to accept this link or not as a justification for publishing in CGT.

When a submission passes the first three tests, the recommendation is likely to be some form of acceptance, probably with revisions. 

Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose, discuss, or distribute any part of a submission to anyone outside the editorial process without explicit permission from the Managing Editors. Reviewers may use the content of a manuscript solely for the purpose of evaluating the submission. The manuscript and any associated materials must not be used for personal advantage or for the benefit of others.

Review reports are likewise considered confidential. The identities of reviewers are not disclosed to the authors, and the content of the reviews must not be shared outside the editorial process without
authorization.

Editors and reviewers must ensure that all materials related to a submission are handled and stored in a manner that preserves their confidentiality.