Since 2007, articles submitted to the Rivista Geografica Italiana undergo a double-blind peer-review process. The aim of the peer review is not solely to assess whether the article is suitable for publication, but to contribute constructively to improving its quality and relevance. To this end, the editorial board collectively evaluates whether the article aligns with the journal’s scope and standards and, if deemed suitable, submits it for review by at least two external experts. All reviewers are individuals with an established scientific reputation and experience in international publications. The editorial board maintains a complete list of reviewers, and publishes it every two years on the Rivista’s website.

The anonymous article is sent to each reviewer along with a questionnaire in which the reviewer is asked to give an analytical judgement on various aspects of the article; an overall comment about the article; a confidential comment on the article to the editorial board; an assessment of the article's suitability for publication, according to the following five options:

1. a) acceptable for publication as it is;
2. b) acceptable after minor revisions;
3. c) acceptable after major revisions, and a second round of review;
4. d) not acceptable, but the authors are suggested to submit the article to other journals;
5. e) not acceptable.

Once the reviews are completed, the editorial board send them to the authors, and asks to submit a revised version of the article, along with a detailed response to each of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. In the case of b), the editorial board can evaluate the revisions autonomously, and/or ask the external reviewers for additional comments. In the case of c), the article is subjected to another round of peer review. If one reviewer recommends publication while the other suggests rejection, the editorial board decides whether to reject the article, or to send it to a third reviewer (without disclosing the results of the previous review), explaining this decision to the reviewer who recommended rejection. The peer review is completed once both the editorial board and the external reviewers judge the article satisfactory.

Reviewers are solely responsible for their evaluations and are not permitted to use generative artificial intelligence tools.