Mineralogia

Please submit your article via Editorial Manager

Instructions for the authors

Open Access Statement

This is an open access journal that provides free, immediate, and unrestricted online access to all its published content for readers around the world.

Open Access License

Since 2021 this journal provides immediate open access to its content under the Creative Commons BY 4.0 license. Authors who publish with this journal retain all copyrights and agree to the terms of the above-mentioned CC BY 4.0 license.

Article Processing Charge (APC)

There are no Article Processing Charges or any other publication charges.

Peer-review process

Mineralogia utilises the single-blind peer-review approach. Each manuscript is reviewed by anonymous reviewers (in case of original or review papers from two to four reviewers; short-notes from one to two reviewers).

Reviewers are asked to prepare reviews according to the following points:

• General Overview (Manuscript Rating Card)
  • The subject addressed in this article is worthy of publication (1 - not, 2 - I am not sure, 3 - yes)
  • Please, rate the degree of innovation/novelty of the research presented in the manuscript. (1 - none, 2 - low, 3 - medium, 4 - high, 5 - outstanding)
  • The conclusions were supported by the data. (1 - not, 2 - most of them not, 3 - half of them yes, 4 - most of them yes, 5 - yes)

• Custom Review Questions
  • Is this manuscript of the quality you expect to see in a high-level journal? Rate it from 1 (poor quality) to 5 (top quality)
  • Are the major innovative points of this study clearly explained in the abstract section?
  • Please, rate the degree of innovation/novelty of the research presented in the manuscript.
  • Is the study of general or local meaning? Please, rate from 1 (local) to 5 (general).
  • Does the author give sufficient credit to related work?
  • Please, rate the quality of the language and writing style.
  • Is language revision by native English speakers necessary?
  • Should the text be shortened?
  • Should the figures and/or tables be improved?

• Reviewer Recommendation Term