Procedure of reviewing scientific articles

  1. Type of review
    The journal employs a Double-Blind peer review procedure:
    • The reviewer does not know the names of the authors.
    • The authors do not know the names of the reviewers.
    • Interaction between them occurs exclusively through the editorial platform or the editorial secretary.
  2. Reviewer selection criteria
    The editorial board appoints reviewers based on the following criteria
    • Competence: Possession of an academic degree and publications within the last 3 years in the field of remote sensing, GIS, or related sciences that correspond to the topic of the article.
    • Absence of conflict of interest: The reviewer must not work at the same institution as the authors or have co-authored works with them during the past 5 years.
    • Geographic diversification: For category "A" articles, at least one external reviewer (from a different institution or country) is engaged.
  3. Stages and deadlines of the process
    1. Preliminary review: The editorial office checks the manuscript for compliance with the journal's scope and for plagiarism (3–5 business days).
    2. Search and appointment of reviewers: Sending requests to experts (up to 7 days).
    3. Review stage: The reviewer has 3–4 weeks to prepare a detailed report.
    4. Author revision: If revisions are required, the author is given between 10 and 20 days.
    5. Subsequent review (if necessary): If the revisions were substantial, up to 14 days.
  4. Documentation forms
    The results of the review are recorded in the Standard Reviewer Report Form, which includes
    • Evaluation checklist: (relevance, methodology, novelty, quality of images/maps).
    • Text section: (detailed analysis of strengths and weaknesses).
    • Recommendation: (accept, revise, or reject).
    • Confidential comments for the editor: (if necessary).
  5. Decision-making
    The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision regarding publication based on the recommendations of the reviewers
    • Two positive reviews: The article is accepted for publication.
    • Conflicting reviews: A third, "arbitrating" reviewer is appointed.
    • Two negative reviews: The manuscript is rejected without the right to resubmit.
  6. Rules for Editors submitting articles to their own journal
    When editors or members of the editorial board submit articles to their own journal, strict ethical guidelines apply to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure the objectivity of the peer review process
    The fundamental rules in such situations are:
    • Exclusion from the decision-making process: An editor who is the author or co-author of an article is completely recused from managing its review process.
    • They are not permitted to appoint reviewers for their own work or to view the reviewers' names before publication.
    • Independent review: The article must undergo a standard double-anonymized or single-anonymized peer review process conducted by external experts who are not members of the editorial staff.
    • Compliance with international standards: The editorial board commits to adhering to the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
    • These rules demand transparency: the published article must state that the author is a member of the editorial board and that the peer review process was conducted independently.
    • Technical compliance: Editors are subject to the same formatting and submission requirements as all other authors.