Peer review process

The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published, and, moreover, is accountable for everything published in the journal. In making these decisions, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The editor maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed. The editor evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). The editor do not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial board members, as appropriate.

The editor is guided by COPE’s Guidelines ( https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines) for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in Advances in Geodesy and Geoinformation.

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

Any manuscripts received for review is treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.

Manuscript evaluations are assigned one of four outcomes: Accept without changes, accept after changes suggested by reviewer, rate manuscript once again after major changes and another review, reject, withdraw.

Manuscripts requiring minor revision (accept after changes suggested by reviewer) not require a second review. All manuscripts receiving a "Rate manuscript once again after major changes and another review " evaluation must be subjected to a second review. Rejected manuscripts are given no further consideration. Normally, manuscripts that receive a "Rate manuscript once again after major changes and another review " decision have only one additional chance for revision and the revised version should be uploaded to the Editorial System within six weeks. If the author(s) failed to make satisfactory changes, the manuscript is rejected. On acceptance, manuscripts are subject to editorial amendment to suit house style. The article should be withdraw due to technical reason (e.g. names of authors are placed in the text, lack of references, or inappropriate structure of the text) or plagiarism.