Editorial Process

Manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Geomatics and Environmental Research (JOGER) must be original, unpublished work not under consideration elsewhere. Initial screening assesses alignment with journal scope, formatting compliance, and plagiarism (manuscripts exceeding 30% similarity are returned or rejected). Suitable submissions undergo double-blind peer review by at least two independent experts evaluating scientific quality. The Editor makes the final decision on acceptance, revision, or rejection.

Post-acceptance, articles proceed to production with proofreading, copyright transfer, and DOI assignment. JOGER’s peer review ensures robust, readable, and impactful publications that advance geomatics and environmental research.

Peer Review Benefits

Peer review validates scientific rigor, identifies gaps requiring additional analysis, improves clarity, and enhances field relevance. Reviewer’s field experts volunteering their expertise provide constructive feedback to elevate manuscript quality..

Common Editorial Rejection Reasons

Manuscripts may face desk rejection for:

· Poor structure or insufficient methodological detail

· Lack of novelty or unclear distinction from prior work

· Outdated references or unsupported conclusions

· Inadequate materials/methods for reproducibility

· Faulty experimental design or statistical analysis

· Language deficiencies

Responding to Reviews

Authors should:

· Address all editor and reviewer comments point-by-point

· Detail revisions in a response letter, using Track Changes or highlighting

· Conduct recommended additional analyses or politely rebut with evidence

· Submit revisions within the specified deadline

Example Response (Agreement):

Reviewer: “A simple Gaussian function would suffice over the obscure regression used.”
Response: “We agree and have re-analyzed using Gaussian fitting (page 5), enabling clearer comparison with prior studies.”

Example Response (Disagreement):

Reviewer: “Gaussian fit preferred for comparability.”

Response: “While Gaussian aids comparison, our function aligns with the Smith model [Smith et al., 1998]. Added explanation (page 3, para 2).”

Only one appeal per review stage is permitted; subsequent rejection warrants submission elsewhere.