Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Aims & Scope:

International Journal of Forest, Soil and Erosion (IJFSE) is a comprehensive Research base Journal. Its primary mission is to encourage communication of the novel and important research results in various fields of Natural Sciences, Forestry and Soil sciences. Contributions published in IJFSE with: Comment on excitement and existing problems of fields, and offer suggestions for improvement the future research.

IJFSE seeks to be the world’s premier open access outlet for academic research. As such, unlike traditional journals, IJFSE does not limit content due to page budgets or thematic significance. Rather, IJFSE evaluates the scientific and research methods of each article for validity and accepts articles solely on the basis of the research. Likewise, by not restricting papers to a narrow discipline, IJFSE facilitates the discovery of the connections between papers, whether within or between disciplines.

IJFSE offers authors quick review and decision times; a continuous-publication format; and global distribution for their research via IJFSE . All articles are professionally copyedited and typeset to ensure quality.

Those who should submit to IJFSE include:

  • Authors who want their articles to receive quality reviews and efficient production, ensuring the quickest publication time.
  • Authors who want their articles to receive free, broad, and global distribution on a powerful, highly discoverable publishing platform.
  • Authors who want their articles branded and marketed by a world-leading social science publisher.
  • Authors who want or need their articles to be open access because of university or government mandates.



Section Policies

English Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Persian Articles (with English abstract and bibliography)

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

All submissions to GHB's journals are first reviewed for completeness and only then sent to be assessed by an Editor who will decide whether they are suitable for peer review. Where an Editor is on the author list or has any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to oversee peer review. Editors will consider the peer-reviewed reports when making a decision, but are not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein. A concern raised by a single peer reviewer or the Editor themself may result in the manuscript being rejected. Authors receive peer review reports with the editorial decision on their manuscript.

Proceedings papers are reviewed by the Programme Chairs and Programme Committee members of the respective conference, with help from external reviewers selected by them.


Peer reviewer selection is critical to the publication process. It is based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, conflict of interest and previous performance. Speed, thoroughness, sound reasoning and collegiality are highly desirable. 

Editor Responsibilities:
●    Editor(s) are expected to obtain a minimum of two peer reviewers for manuscripts reporting primary research or secondary analysis of primary research. It is recognized that in some exceptional circumstances, particularly in niche and emerging fields, it may not be possible to obtain two independent peer reviewers. In such cases, Editor(s) may wish to make a decision to publish based on one peer review report. When making a decision based on one report, Editor(s) are expected to only do so if the peer review report meets the standards set out below.
●    Peer review reports should be in English and provide constructive critical evaluations of the authors’ work, particularly in relation to the appropriateness of methods used, whether the results are accurate, and whether the conclusions are supported by the results. Editorial decisions should be based on peer reviewer comments that meet these criteria rather than on recommendations made by short, superficial peer reviewer reports which do not provide a rationale for the recommendations.
●    Editor(s) are expected to independently verify the contact details of reviewers suggested by authors or other third parties. Institutional email addresses should be used to invite peer reviewers wherever possible. Each manuscript should be reviewed by at least one reviewer who was not suggested by the author.
●    Manuscripts that do not report primary research or secondary analysis of primary research, such as Editorials, Book Reviews, Commentaries or Opinion articles, may be accepted without peer review. Such manuscripts should be assessed by the Editor(s) if the topic is in the area of expertise of the Editor(s); if the topic is not in area of expertise of the Editor(s), such manuscripts should be assessed by at least one independent expert reviewer or Editorial Board Member.

In the rare, exceptional, occasions when two independent peer reviewers cannot be secured, the Editor may act as a second reviewer or make a decision using only one report.
●    Editor must have a sufficient amount of knowledge in the area if acting as a second reviewer
●    Editor should sign the review to ensure transparency in the peer review process
●    Any single reports should be detailed and thorough
●    The first reviewer should be senior, on topic and have published recently on the subject

Potential peer reviewers should inform the Editor of any possible conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript. Communications between Editors and peer reviewers contain confidential information that should not be shared with third parties. 

Some journals allow authors to suggest potential reviewers, and to request that some be excluded from consideration (usually a maximum of two people/research groups). Editors will consider these requests, but are not obliged to fulfill them. The Editor's decision on the choice of peer reviewers is final.

Authors should not recommend recent collaborators or colleagues who work in the same institution as themselves. Authors can suggest peer reviewers in the cover letter. Information which will help the Editor verify the identity and expertise of the reviewer will be required. This includes the suggested reviewer’s institutional email address and ORCID or Scopus ID. 

Peer reviewer diversity

GH's journals strive for diverse demographic representation within our peer reviewer database. Authors are strongly encouraged to consider gender, race and geography when recommending peer reviewers



Article Types


1. Original research articles
2. Review articles
3. Short reports

1. Original research articles are original full-length papers that have not been published previously elsewhere, except in a preliminary form.
2. Review articles are normally solicited by the Editors. Submission of review articles is also welcome.
3. Short reports are intended to present important new information, not to publish preliminary results or to be a reduced version of original articles. These papers are expected to announce technical advances, or to present bioinformatics or insightful findings of root development and function. Manuscripts for Short reports must not be longer than five (5) printed pages.

Other types of articles might be welcome.