Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation
Peer review for the journal Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation® is a third-party evaluation of an author’s submitted written work.  This impartial evaluation is voluntarily contributed from the proposition of making certain the paper follows generally accepted methodology and standards of the groundwater field.  When voluntary reviewers identify areas in which a paper may be strengthened in its conceptualization, as well as in the investigation that led to the paper, they share their viewpoints with the author.  Reviewers may also offer guidance about format, style, and organization.  Authors consider the counsel and respond appropriately. 
 
Peer review at Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation®, like most journals, is not the same as other scientific research pursuits, such as randomized testing, or observational studies, such as those used in determining the safety of pharmaceuticals, for example.  Peer reviewed work, while published by the Association to advance scientific discourse, does not constitute an endorsement by the National Ground Water Association.
 

Once published, Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation® papers are subject to review and comment from the larger community of readers who use review and public discussion to advance the science.  Authors also have the opportunity through a published Erratum note to correct typographic or other errors discovered after the article is published. 

See an example of a peer review.

What is the paper peer review process for Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation?

A submitted paper is examined by the editor, generally for appropriateness, and new general principles and innovative ideas.  If not rejected outright — about a third of all submissions to Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation® meet that fate — the paper proceeds to review. The editor solicits reviews from three individuals, one of which is usually an associate editor of Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation®.  The associate editor is selected by the editor as one having a related background in the broad area of the paper, but not necessarily highly specialized expertise.  As associate editors are volunteers who contribute their time as circumstances allow, it is not always possible to have exact problem-specific matches between the paper’s author’s work and the associate editor.  Like the associate editor, reviewers too are volunteers and while qualified in a disciplinary sense, also may not have exact problem-specific matches to the paper’s subject matter.
 
Once the reviewers have examined the paper, it is returned to the editor for a decision.  At this stage, papers are either accepted, rejected, or sent back to the authors for revision.  Papers are declined because in the opinion of the reviewers and the editor the paper has been deemed unsuitable for publication for one of several reasons.  In all, about 50 percent of original submissions are published. Papers revised by the authors are returned to the associate editor for evaluation of the quality of the revision.  The editor again reviews the recommendation of the associate editor and the paper to decide whether the paper is suitable for publication or additional revisions are needed.  It is common for additional rounds of revision and review to be required before the paper is finally accepted.
 
Reviewers are asked to consider the following questions when evaluating a paper.
 
  1. Do the ideas/techniques/methods presented in the paper change the way we perform or look at our science?
  2. What are the important contributions of this paper?
  3. Is the hypothesis clearly stated and the experimental design correctly chosen to test the hypothesis?
  4. Is the analysis technically correct?
  5. Does the paper present new ideas?  If it contains new information, is it a fundamentally useful contribution or is it only marginally useful?
  6. Is the literature cited complete or are important references left out?
  7. Has this work, or very similar work, been published elsewhere?
  8. Is the abstract clearly written and informative?  Does it convey the essence of the research?
 
Authors should identify new general principles and innovative ideas and/or methods in the research.  One or more case study examples may be used to illustrate the application of new methods and/or concepts.  However, the new general principles to be explored in the paper must be highlighted in the abstract, the introduction, and conclusion sections.  The title, also, should reflect the focus on new principles/methods rather than the case study aspects of the paper.
 
Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation®’s peer review process utilizes reviewer independence to obtain an unbiased evaluation.  NGWA finds among a sampling of professional journals, Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation®s practice of sharing an author’s identity with the associate editors and reviewers is shared with 48 percent of such journals.  Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation®’s practice is not to disclose reviewer identities to authors unless the author asks and the reviewer grants permission. 

What is the paper peer review timeline?

 

The editor-in-chief strives to obtain three independent peer reviews for every research paper submitted to the journal.  One reviewer is always an associate editor.  This process averages three months. If the manuscript is deemed to be inappropriate for Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation®, or not ready for peer review, you will be notified right away by the editor-in-chief.

If your manuscript is placed in the peer review process, you will be notified via e-mail when the editor-in-chief has made a decision regarding your paper.  You will receive one of the following decisions:

  • Accepted for publication
  • Accepted with minor revision
  • Declined for publication — please resubmit
  • Declined for publication.

If revision of your paper is needed, you will be required to submit your revised manuscript within 30 to 60 days depending on the extent of work needed.

Revised manuscripts are usually reviewed by one of the original reviewers.  This process usually takes about one month, but can take longer.  After review, you will be notified via e-mail of the editor-in-chief's decision, which will be one of the following:

  • Accepted for publication
  • Accepted with minor revision
  • Additional revision requested
  • Declined for publication — please resubmit
  • Declined for publication.

If your paper is accepted for publication, you are required to submit several items to our office for final manuscript processing.  These are:

  • The final manuscript in Microsoft Word format.
  • High-resolution figures (at least 300 dpi).  They can be in TIF, EPS, or PDF format (TIF is preferred).  We cannot accept JPGs.
  • Your signed copyright transfer agreement (this is done completely online through Wiley’s Author Services page at its website).
  • Your signed page charge form.​

​Copyediting and preparation of page proofs takes approximately four weeks.  You will be e-mailed page proofs by Wiley prior to publication.  Your paper will be published online prior to print publication.  Online publication is the publication of record.  No changes can be made once the paper appears online.

This is a general outline of the review process; timelines and procedures can vary from manuscript to manuscript depending on special circumstances.  The entire process from submission to publication averages about a year.

 Authors can check the status of their manuscripts at any time via our online manuscript submission system.