The editorial office of the North American GeoGebra Journal (ISSN 2162-3856).
Submissions and peer review happen here, in the open, as GitHub Issues. The published journal lives at geogebrajournal.com (website repo).
Status: draft. Every checklist and policy in this repo is a placeholder for the editorial board to revise. Nothing here is in force yet.
- Read the review process and publication ethics.
- Prepare your manuscript from the article template.
- Open a submission issue.
There are no submission fees and no publication fees.
Everything you need is in the review issue itself: the editor posts your checklist there, you work through it in the open, and the conversation is the review. See the reviewer checklist.
Reviews are signed and public. Your name appears on the review record, and it is permanently citable — that is the point. If you would rather not review in the open, tell the editor; that is a legitimate answer and not held against you.
See the editor checklist.
Author opens a submission issue
|
| editor checks scope and conflicts
v
Editor assigns reviewers, posts checklists in the issue
|
| reviewers work in the open; author revises
v
Editor accepts
|
| bot opens a PR against the website repo
v
Published, with a permanent link back to this review issue
The issue is the review record. There is no separate file to maintain, and nothing is deleted — a published article links back to the thread that produced it.
The paper is the object of review. NAGJ publishes work on the use of GeoGebra in mathematics education (K–16), not GeoGebra software itself.
A GeoGebra resource is welcome and encouraged, but not required. A paper that gives the construction commands, or shows figures a reader can follow, is complete without one. Where a resource does exist, it is hosted by the author — normally on geogebra.org — and the journal records its permanent URL. We do not host applets.
The question a reviewer is really answering is can a reader recreate this? An applet is one good answer. Commands are another. Figures can be a third.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/ submission and correction forms
.github/workflows/ automation (@nagjbot commands)
checklists/ what editors and reviewers actually check
policies/ review process, ethics, conflicts, conduct
templates/ editor boilerplate: decisions, requests
scripts/ the logic the workflows call
Automation here does process, not judgement: it validates metadata, builds PDFs, creates review issues, tracks assignments, and prepares publication. It does not evaluate mathematics, assess pedagogy, or recommend decisions. Those are the reviewers' job and the editor's.
The bot runs as GitHub Actions rather than a hosted service — deliberately. At this journal's volume, a deployed application would be more to maintain than it would ever save.