NO EN Logg inn


Grunnleggende informasjon

Internasjonal tittel:



2076-3263         Periode: [2011 .. ]










NPI Fagfelt:



✅ Vitenskapelig redaksjon
✅ Fagfellevurdert
✅ Internasjonal forfatterkrets
✅ Godkjent ISSN

Åpen tilgang

 Inkludert i en publiseringsavtale:
Institusjonsavtale Gyldig til 31.12.2024
1 Institusjoner i avtalen: Vis [+]
Universitetet i Bergen
Plan S: Journal Checker Tool [+]

Nivåplasseringer og UH-sektorens publiseringspoeng

År Nivå Forfatterandeler Publiseringspoeng
2024 1
2023 1
2022 1 3.1125 6.5256
2021 1 4.0929 7.9418
2020 1 1.9167 2.4665
2019 1 1.8917 3.145
2018 1 3.9444 7.3407
2017 1 0.5 1.3
Offentliggjøres i mai året etter


Kommentarer som gjelder oppdatering av informasjon, er kun synlig for deg og saksbehandler. Kommentarer som gjelder faglige innspill og nivå, blir offentlige.

Logg inn for å kommentere
I have both reviewed and published in MDPI Geosciences recently and I was actually very pleased:

- When reviewing, I asked for major revision, and the editor did require a major revision and asked the authors to answer my comments, which they did in an appropriate way, at which point I recommended acceptance of the paper. The other reviewers also had comments, that also were answered by the authors in an appropriate way. I think that the peer review and the scientific discussion during the review was very good and sound.

- When publishing at MDPI Geosciences myself, I actually received 3 reviews. The reviews were detailed and of good quality. Actually, 1 reviewer recommended acceptance as is, 1 asked for minor revision, and 1 for major revision, and the editor picked the "major revision" decision, so it was definitely not sloppy. There also, I was perfectly satisfied.

For my part, I think I will continue to use them, as:

- yes it costs a bit (around 1500USD), but the final paper is gold access, under a permissive license (CC BY), so i) everybody can read it without paywall, ii) the permissive license means that everybody can re use the figures etc as long as they give credits, which I think is very useful (for example for writing a review or a book)

- the editors are responsive and publication goes reasonably fast: it took 3 weeks between submission and first review, I had 2 weeks to revise, and after I submitted the revised manuscript, it took 2 weeks before acceptance. This is much better than other geosciences journals that can take up to 1 to 1.5 years to get things published. This has a lot to say when publishing with students, who will be long gone when they are MSc or BSc students if the review takes 1 to 1.5 years, while a couple of months as it took with MDPI is much more manageable.

Thank you for the information.

We have placed the journal back at level 1, as you might have noticed, due to the positive comments we received.

Kind regards,
Lena-Cecilie Linge
I have never published in Geosciences but I have reviewed for them on several occasions. Twice I have recommended "major revisions" and, on both occasions, the manuscript has gone back to the authors with appropriate instructions from the editor and the paper has been revised significantly and to my satisfaction. In other words, I have found the review procedure to be as rigorous as with many other journals I have reviewed for. The recent changes in requirements for open access publication make Geosciences a more attractive, rather than less attractive destination for quality geoscientific research.
I do have reservations about the publisher in their aggressive drive for Special Issues, and the demands they make on reviewers' turnover time (10 days) - but this applies to many more journals than just Geosciences, and is no reason to single out this particular journal.
With regards to the quality of the research published, and the peer review process, I see no reason to change the status from Level 1.
We published in a special issue edited by Willy Fjeldskaar and Larry Cathles:

I found the review (two anonymous reviewers) and the work of the editors very professional and comparable to other open source journals such as Frontiers in Earth Science.
Tilbud omå være redaktør: Det kommer jevnlig e-post med spørsmål om å melde min interesse for å bli redaktør for tidsskrift innen fagområder jeg knapt har hørt om, og som overhodet ikke har noen forbindelse med mitt fag - fra velrennomerte tidsskrift og forlag. Dette anser jeg som e-pest, som sendes ut i massevis, basert på mer eller mindre korrekte e-postlister. Det er ikke et faglig problem. Et faglig problem som danner basis for nulling, blir det bare om tidsskriftene ikke har noen kontroll på hvem de faktisk slipper til i slike posisjoner, etter å ha gjort en individuell vurdering av personens kvalifikasjoner.
I have recently published in Geosciences and got a fairly positive impression of the journal. I found the review process to be in line with what I have experiences in other level 1 and 2 journals. We got extensive comments from two anonymous reviewers, both of which knew enough about the topic to make useful contributions, and at least one of them clearly knew the topic well. One of the reviewers asked for major revisions and they were sent the article a second time. The article was only accepted after the reviewer who asked for major revisions had approved the revised version.

Strengths: The journal is a full open access journal and in my experience, it was really good at promoting transparency. They required full datasets to be published where possible, gave detailed instructions for describing author contribution and funding information etc. Open reviews were offered but optional. Fairly low APC and rapid publication times are also good for scientific transparency. There are few fully open journals in geoscience, and I think that is worth supporting.

Weaknesses: If there was any in-house scientific control in addition to the reviews it was not clear to me as an author. We received the reviews without any further comments from the editor. The journal uses external editors for their many special issues, and I suppose those judge whether or not the suggested article topic is relevant, but I’m not sure if they are further involved later in the process or if the reviewers serve as the only real quality control. I have also received a few reviewer requests from the journal that were somewhat relevant but which I find too far outside of my expertise.

Overall, I believe that the journal has some problems but based on my experience I would keep it at level 1 for now.
Request to upgrade Geosciences (ISSN 2076-3263; CODEN: GBSEDA) ( from Nivå 1 to nivå 2 due to the Scientific quality criteria that are recognized in this peer reviewed journal and to the following reasons:

High Visibility/ Indexing and abstracting: Geosciences Journal is Indexed in the Major Indexing/Abstracting Service In The Field of geoscience, future earth and planetary science that include interdisciplinary topics as the effect of climate change on the existing built environment. It is indexed to Scopus, Web of Science; Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI - Web of Science), and other databases as ADS - Astrophysics Data System, DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals, GeoRef (American Geosciences Institute) and other. This Factor Is Used For Evaluating The Prestige Of Journals.

Impact factor: The CiteScore in 2017 (Scopus) was: 1.97, which equals rank 32/182 (Q1) in the category 'General Earth and Planetary Sciences'. It means that Geosciences Journal is in the top quartiles of all the journals published in the field.

Open access/online submission: Open access is free for readers, with article processing charges (APC) paid by authors or their institutions. In addition the Online submission system of the MDPI publisher is user-friendly.

Journal citation and ranking: Papers published in geosciences Journal have a high citation. It means that authors publishing in this journal can improve their h-index.

Journal reputation/ circulation: The Journal reputation is high in the field (of geoscience, future earth and planetary science that include interdisciplinary topics as the effect of climate change on the existing built environment). This is due to the above quality criteria, the regularity and international presence of the authors that choose to publish in Geosciences and that are very well known in the field, the publication of Special issue that are of high interest among the researchers (e.g. “Geoscience of the Built Environment 2019 Edition”; "Weathering Processes in Cold Region: Questions, New Ideas and Approaches, and New Findings"; "Preservation of Cultural Heritage and Resources Threatened by Climate Change"). Finally it is due to the Journal publisher and editorial board quality recognized at international level.

Paper originality/ Acceptance and rejection rates: The Acceptance Criteria Is Of High Quality Standard. The Journal has a High Rejection Rate as the review process requires acceptance status from at least 3 reviewers.

Length of review / Time lag: It has a Rapid publication. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed and a first decision provided to authors approximately 18 days after submission; acceptance to publication is undertaken in 5.95 days (median values for papers published in the first six months of 2018).
I completely agree with this assessment. I have reviewed for Geosciences a few times and find their publishing model refreshing and rigorous. As the ERC is pushing for open access publication among participant countries, it is incumbent on the NPI to provide opportunities for researchers in various fields to publish in open access journals of sufficient quality. MDPI journals are not predatory as so many are--they are high quality and all papers are thoroughly vetted.

Direktoratet for høgare utdanning og kompetanse
Postboks 1093, 5809 Bergen
Tlf: 55 30 38 00




Innhold på denne siden er lisensiert under Norsk lisens for offentlige data (NLOD) Norsk lisens for offentlige data (NLOD) og Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)). tilbyr informasjonskapsler for å lære mer om sine brukere. Jeg samtykker Nei takk