Peer Review Policy


The objective of our journal's peer review process is to ensure the publication of high-quality scientific research in the field of geomatics. Peer review is an essential component of our editorial process, allowing us to maintain rigorous standards and provide valuable feedback to authors.

Types of Articles:

Our journal accepts original research articles, review articles, and technical notes related to various branches of geomatics. All submitted articles will undergo a thorough peer review process to ensure scientific accuracy, relevance, and novelty.

Reviewers Selection:

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and research experience in the specific field covered by the submitted article. They should possess a Ph.D. or an equivalent degree and have a strong publication record in reputable journals. Reviewers are chosen impartially to avoid any conflict of interest with the authors.

Review Process:

Upon submission, each article will go through the following steps:

  • Initial Evaluation: The editorial team performs an initial evaluation to check the article's adherence to the journal's scope, format, and guidelines. If the submission meets these criteria, it proceeds to the next stage.
  • Peer Review Assignment: The Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to at least two independent reviewers who have the necessary expertise to evaluate the article's scientific content.
  • Peer Review: Reviewers conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the manuscript, assessing its originality, methodology, significance, and clarity. They also provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their work. Reviewers may recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript.
  • Editorial Decision: Based on the reviewers' feedback, the Editor-in-Chief makes an editorial decision, considering the overall merit and suitability of the article. The decision can be acceptance, minor/major revision, or rejection.
  • Revision: If revisions are requested, authors are given an opportunity to address the reviewers' comments and improve their manuscript. Revised articles are usually re-evaluated by the original reviewers or new reviewers.
  • Final Decision: The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on the revised manuscript and the reviewers' recommendations. The decision is communicated to the authors along with reviewer comments, if applicable.

Confidentiality and Anonymity:

The peer review process is conducted anonymously. Reviewers' identities are kept confidential, and author identities are concealed during the review. Reviewers are expected to treat manuscripts as privileged information and maintain confidentiality.


We strive to ensure a timely and efficient review process. Reviewers are typically given a specific timeframe (e.g., 2-3 weeks) to complete their reviews. Authors are also encouraged to submit their revisions within a reasonable time frame.

Appeals and Ethical Concerns:

Authors may appeal a rejection decision if they believe there was a significant error in the review process. Any ethical concerns or conflicts of interest should be reported to the Editor-in-Chief for appropriate investigation.

Continuous Improvement:

We value feedback from authors and reviewers to enhance our peer review process continually. We regularly assess our policies and procedures and make necessary adjustments to maintain the highest standards of scientific publishing.