Editorial Procedures and Peer-Review
All submitted manuscripts received by the Editorial Office will be checked by a professional in-house Managing Editor to determine whether they are properly prepared and whether they follow the ethical policies of the journal, including those for human and animal experimentation. Manuscripts that do not fit the journal's ethics policy or do not meet the standards of the journal will be rejected before peer-review. Manuscripts that are not properly prepared will be returned to the authors for revision and resubmission.
Once a manuscript passes the initial checks, it will be assigned to at least two independent experts for peer-review. A double-blind review is applied, where the identities of both reviewers and authors are concealed from each other throughout the review. Peer review comments are confidential and will only be disclosed with the express agreement of the reviewer.
These experts may also include Editorial Board members and Guest Editors of the journal. Potential reviewers suggested by the authors may also be considered. Reviewers should not have published with any of the co-authors during the past five years and should not currently work or collaborate with any of the institutions of the co-authors of the submitted manuscript.
Editorial Decision and Revision
All the articles, reviews and communications published in journal go through the peer-review process and receive at least two reviews . The in-house editor will communicate the decision of the Editor-in-Chief, which will be one of the following:
- Accept after Minor Revisions:
The paper is in principle accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments. Authors are given five days for minor revisions.
- Reconsider after Major Revisions:
The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point by point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. Usually, only one round of major revisions is allowed. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within a suitable time frame, and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments.
- Reject and Encourage Resubmission:
If additional experiments are needed to support the conclusions, the manuscript will be rejected and the authors will be encouraged to re-submit the paper once further experiments have been conducted.
The article has serious flaws, and/or makes no original significant contribution. No offer of resubmission to the journal is provided.
All reviewer comments should be responded to in a point-by-point fashion. Where the authors disagree with a reviewer, they must provide a clear response.
Authors may appeal a rejection by sending an e-mail to the Editorial Office of the journal. The appeal must provide a detailed justification, including point-by-point responses to the reviewers' and/or Editor's comments. The Managing Editor of the journal will forward the manuscript and related information (including the identities of the referees) to the Editor-in-Chief.
A reject decision at this stage is final and cannot be reversed.
Production and Publication
Once accepted, the manuscript will undergo professional copy-editing, proofreading by the authors, final corrections, pagination, and, publication on the website.
During the submission process, please suggest three potential reviewers with the appropriate expertise to review the manuscript. The editors will not necessarily approach these referees. Please provide detailed contact information (address, homepage, phone, e-mail address). The proposed referees should neither be current collaborators of the co-authors nor have published with any of the co-authors of the manuscript within the last five years. You may suggest reviewers from among the authors that you frequently cite in your paper.
We are sincerely grateful to scholars who give their time to peer review articles submitted to Ukrainian journal of Remote Sensing. Rigorous peer-review is the cornerstone of high quality academic publishing. The reviewers are requested to prepare their review reports as follows in accordance with the form.
In the section “Other comments and suggestations” it is necessary to indicate specific comments on the article: (at least 300 characters).
In case of a negative conclusion, it is necessary to indicate justified reasons.
Before starting work, we recommend that Reviewers familiarize themselves with the review guide.