The Geant4 Publication Policy

Submission, Review and Approval Guidelines

The following guidelines were developed to aid the Geant4 internal reviewers in the process of examining and critiquing a Geant4 manuscript before it is approved for publication.

  1. Each editor should check the draft for:
    • technical correctness The publication board will attempt to assign at least one editor who is an expert in the subject area. If expertise is needed from outside the review team, please ask an appropriate collaboration member.
    • organization and clarity Make sure the draft clearly states its points, is organized logically, and is relatively easy to read.
    • grammar and spelling In most cases this should be limited to relatively small changes in the text, so as not to change the message. In a few cases many changes may be required to make the draft readable. The publication board will try to assign someone with good English skills to each team. If this is not possible, ask for help from another collaborator.
    • quality of tables and figures Make sure plots are legible, with good captions and axis labels, and not too crowded with data or histograms.
    • the correctness and appropriateness of the author list.
  2. The review team will assist the author(s) in gathering and addressing comments from collaboration members. This process should converge as rapidly as possible (typically two weeks and no longer than one month). For conference presentations the number of iterations must be held to a minimum (typically one week and no longer than ten days) and the Review Team will balance the need to gain approval with the need to meet deadlines.
  3. The review team will ensure that the publication, together with relevant supporting documentation, is made available to the collaboration in a timely manner.
  4. The review team will communicate directly to the author(s) with:
    • approval of submission, if all is well, or
    • corrections of fact, English, spelling, etc., or suggestions to make the draft better.
  5. The review team will post the revised draft to the publication board web site for comment from the full collaboration. Note: as this web site does not yet exist, this step may be skipped.
  6. Upon completion of review, the review team will transmit the final version of the publication to the Publication Board along with its recommendations.
  7. If a paper is returned from a refereed journal, the author(s), with the help of the review team, will attempt to satisfy the comments of the referees and resubmit the paper with appropriate modification. The Publication Board will monitor the re-submission process through the Review Team.

Dispute Resolution Policy

In the event that disagreements arise over the approval or disapproval of a paper or conference contribution, the following resolution procedure will be used:

  • if the author(s) disagree with the recommendation of the reviewers, the author(s) may appeal to the publication board. The dispute may then be resolved by mutual discussion, or by the appointment of a new review panel.
  • if the author(s) disagree with the decision of the publication board, the matter will be referred to the steering board, whose decision will be final.

Posting and Tracking of Publications

A publication and presentation review system has been set up using CERN indico. Manuscripts can be posted there under the conference or paper headings. There will be one heading for each full paper and one heading for each conference under which all contributions to the proceedings will be placed. The procedure is as follows:

  • The author(s) will contact the publication board as soon as they have a paper to be submitted to a journal, or an abstract or proceeding to be submitted to a conference. In the case of a conference with a submission deadline, this request must be made at least three weeks prior to the deadline.
  • The publications board will create a new category on the publications indico page corresponding to the journal or conference submission. Under this category two sub-categories will be created:

    • Review, where the author will post his paper, abstract, or submission. Under this heading there will be an indico-style meeting created whose title will be that of the paper or conference. During the first stage of the review process, only authors and reviewers will have access to this meeting area. All paper revisions will be posted here, as well as reviewer comments, which can be made using the minutes function accompanying each entry.
      • The “Edit minutes” function is accessed by clicking on the white down-arrow on the right-hand side of page.
    • For Collaboration Comment, which will be used for comments from the entire collaboration after the first stage of the review is complete. At this time, both the “Review” and “For Collaboration Comment” areas will be opened to the full collaboration. The reviewer-approved mansuscript will be copied to this meeting area, where comments and further revisions can be made. After the review process is complete, these areas will remain open to the collaboration, but not to the general public.
  • If you have questions about the procedure, or problems accessing or posting to indico, please contact your publication board members.


Publication board e-mail :