Peer Review Policy

IJGIS Journal's Peer Review Policy:

Our journal employs a Single Blind (reviewer anonymous) Peer Review policy to promote effectiveness, openness, and foster a collaborative scientific environment. This process involves the following key elements:

Reviewer Identity Disclosure: Reviewers' identities are NOT revealed to authors. This openness fosters constructive and respectful feedback.
Transparent Communication: Reviewers' anonymous comments and author responses are shared among all authors involved in the review process.
Enhanced Feedback Quality: By not knowing the reviewers' identities, authors can get better feedback, which can lead to more productive revisions and discussions.
Quality and Integrity: We uphold rigorous standards for quality and integrity. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, and all reviews are carefully moderated to ensure they meet our journal's standards for professionalism and scientific rigor.
Reviewer decision: The reviewer submits the review, along with their review decision- this is one of: Accepted/Needs Revisions/Rejected. Only after at least two reviewers have accepted the manuscript, and no reviewers have rejected it, can a paper go into publishing.

Our Single Blind Peer Review policy aims to enhance the trustworthiness, accountability, and collaborative spirit of the peer review process, ultimately advancing the quality and impact of scientific research.

IJGIS Peer Review Process

To ensure the publication of high-quality, original research that contributes significantly to the fields of global innovations and solutions, we employ a rigorous and transparent peer review process. This process emphasizes fairness, timeliness, and constructive feedback, with the goal of advancing scholarly dialogue and innovation.

1. Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the IJGIS online ijgis.org/submission portal. Each submission must comply with the journal's guidelines, including formatting, citation style (IEEE), and ethical standards.
Editorial Screening: Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to verify that the manuscript adheres to the journal's aims and scope. Manuscripts may be returned to authors for minor formatting corrections before entering peer review.

2. Assignment of Manuscript

Editor-in-Chief/Managing Editor Assignment: The Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor assigns a section editor based on the subject matter of the manuscript.
Selection of Reviewers: The section editor invites two to four reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Reviewers may be selected from IJGIS's reviewer pool or through professional networks.

3. Peer Review Process

Single Blind Review: IJGIS employs a single review process to ensure effectiveness, openness, and a collaborative research environment.
AI-Assisted Review: For preliminary checks, the manuscript may be reviewed using AI tools like ChatGPT to assess language clarity, consistency, and adherence to structure. These AI reviews will supplement, but not replace, human peer reviews.

4. Review Timeline

Reviewers are expected to submit their review within 1-2 weeks. Reminders will be sent at the 2-week mark if a review is still pending.
The section editor monitors progress and may follow up directly with reviewers when delays occur.

5. Review Outcomes

Once the reviews are received, the section editor consolidates feedback and decides the next course of action:

Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication with minimal or no changes.
Need Revisions: Changes are required. The revised manuscript undergoes another round of review by the original reviewers.
Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in IJGIS.

6. Communication with Authors

Decision Letter: Authors receive a review decision detailing the reviewers’ comments and the editorial decision.
Authors are encouraged to revise their manuscript according to feedback and resubmit within the given deadline.

7. Post-Revision Review

Final Check: If revisions are satisfactory, the section editor and the Editor-in-Chief give final approval.
Additional Rounds: If revisions do not meet the expectations of the reviewers, additional rounds of review may be initiated.

8. Ethics and Conflict of Interest

Reviewer Declaration: Reviewers are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting the assignment. This includes personal or professional relationships with the authors.
Ethical Compliance: IJGIS strictly adheres to COPE guidelines on publication ethics. Any ethical concerns raised during peer review (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication) will be handled in coordination with the authors and relevant institutions.

9. Publication

Once the manuscript is accepted and all final checks are completed, it is moved into the production phase where copyediting, formatting, and final proofreading take place.
The final version is published on the IJGIS platform with open access model.

Additional Points

Reviewer Incentives: Acknowledgment of reviewers in providing email acknowledgement letter.
AI Integration: As the journal grows, IJGIS aims to experiment further with AI tools for automated reviewer matching and pre-screening of submissions to expedite the process.

The peer review process at IJGIS is designed to ensure the highest standards of scholarly rigor, constructive feedback, and transparency, while embracing innovative tools to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the review process.

IJGIS Peer Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the following:

Originality: Does the manuscript contribute new knowledge or present an innovative solution?
Methodological Rigor: Are the methods robust, well-described, and appropriate for the research question?
Clarity and Organization: Is the manuscript well-structured and clear?
Theoretical Contribution: Does the research build upon existing knowledge or introduce new theoretical insights?
Technical Soundness: Is the technical execution sound, with appropriate data analysis and error-checking?
Relevance and Significance: Does the work align with the journal’s scope and hold significance for the broader community?
Subjective Expertise and Focus Areas: Focus your review on the aspects of the manuscript that align most closely with your area of expertise. Provide specific insights or suggestions based on your knowledge.
Open-ended Feedback: Use this to raise any other issues or thoughts you feel are important for improving the manuscript, even if not directly addressed by the criteria.

Potential Impact: What is the broader potential impact of this research, both within and outside its primary field?

Reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed, constructive feedback with suggestions for improving the manuscript.

Detailed Guidance on AI vs. Human role in Peer Review:

Criteria	AI Role	Human Role	Reviewer’s Guidance
1. Originality and Innovation	Plagiarism check: Detects overlaps with known texts or papers, ensuring no copied content.	Assess novelty: Determine if the research presents new ideas, approaches, or insights.	- Evaluate if the contribution addresses a unique problem or adds meaningful value to the literature. - Cross-check AI plagiarism reports for context—some overlaps (like common phrases) might not indicate plagiarism.
2. Methodological Rigor	Flag missing sections: Identifies potential omissions in methods, like missing datasets or unclear variables.	Assess appropriateness: Determine if methods are suitable for the research question and performed correctly.	- Confirm the methodology aligns with best practices in the field. - Use AI's flagged sections as a checklist but apply your expertise to judge subtle flaws, like biases in sample selection.
3. Relevance to the Field	Initial screening: Match keywords and scope to the journal’s focus.	Evaluate significance: Judge the importance and fit of the manuscript in the current discourse of the field.	- Think beyond keywords: Does this paper align with the themes of the journal? - Consider its relevance to both academia and practical applications in the field.
4. Clarity and Organization	Grammar and structure suggestions: Detects awkward phrasing, grammar issues, or unclear sections.	High-level feedback: Assess whether the structure logically supports the argument or research flow.	- Use AI’s grammar suggestions to refine the text but focus more on logic and readability. - Provide feedback on how to improve the flow between sections (e.g., introduction to conclusion).
5. Theoretical and Practical Contributions	Summarize references and related works: Highlight key works cited and suggest additional references based on trends.	Analyze contributions: Assess whether the work builds on existing theories or introduces practical solutions.	- Check if the paper advances knowledge or offers innovative solutions. - Compare the findings to the AI-suggested related works but ensure the authors present a unique perspective.
6. Subjective Expertise and Focus Areas	None	Provide insights from your expertise: Focus on areas of the manuscript most relevant to your knowledge and interests.	- Focus on specialized areas: Are there specific issues with methods, theories, or interpretations that you spot? - Your unique insights are valuable and not replicable by AI—trust your intuition.
7. Open-ended Feedback	None	Offer creative, intuitive suggestions: Go beyond the structured criteria to provide additional, thoughtful feedback.	- Identify hidden weaknesses or opportunities for improvement. - Encourage the authors where appropriate and suggest alternative perspectives or future directions.
8. Potential Impact	Highlight trends and topics: Suggests emerging themes based on keyword patterns.	Evaluate real-world impact: Judge how the work can influence practice, policy, or further research.	- Use AI trends as guidance, but trust your judgment in predicting the paper’s true potential. - Consider interdisciplinary applications that AI might not recognize.