Review criteria

Manuscripts must closely fit with the aims and scope of the journal. Original articles should provide highly original and significant information. Please indicate to what extent the manuscript meets each criterion by rating from 1–5 (where 1 is the lowest level and 5 the highest):

Is the manuscript of interest to the mineralogical and/or petrological community?
Do its originality and scientific importance justify publication in a first-rank international journal?
Does the title convey the essence of the paper?
Is it concise enough?
Is the abstract concise and informative?
Are the figures and tables explicit?
Are all figures and tables necessary?
Is the reference list relevant and up to date?
Are results and interpretations clearly separated?
If applicable, did you double-check the structure of new crystals?
Can the text be shortened without losing clarity?
Should some material be deposited as supplementary material rather than being published in the paper?

Manuscripts submitted to EJM will first undergo an initial review by the journal's chief editors to identify manuscripts with obvious major deficiencies in view of the above manuscript evaluation criteria.

The chief editor will send a manuscript to an associate editor with expertise in the manuscript's subject area. The associate editor will either immediately reject the manuscript or select two to three reviewers for full review. Associate editors should provide a summary of the review and choose among these options in their recommendation to the chief editor: acceptance with corrections, minor revision, major revision, major revision and resubmission, rejection.

In addition to rating the manuscript by taking into account the manuscript evaluation criteria as shown above, referees are encouraged to provide comments to authors evaluating specific aspects of the manuscript. Referees will be asked to choose among these options in their recommendation to the associate editor: acceptance, minor revision, major revision, rejection.