Important Notes
- Unless otherwise specified, the IJSDIR assumes that the authors do not wish to remain anonymous and will handle the review process openly, including open posting of the article on the Journal’s website. In this way, the work of authors may be made available to the scientific community as quickly as possible. The journal is not obligated to post the article on its web site but if such a posting is made, the authors agree that they are fully responsible for the material contained in such initial submissions.
- If the authors wish to remain anonymous during the review process, they MUST clearly say so at the time of submission. If this is the case, the articles are submitted to the reviewers as anonymous submissions, and the article is NOT posted on the journal web site.
- The Journal has no objection to the posting of a submitted article on a university, government or non-profit organization web site with the author’s permission while the article is being peer reviewed by IJSDIR. In such a case, the following statement must be inserted at the top of the article: "Work in Progress - under peer review by the International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research (IJSDIR). Consult http://ijsdir.sadl.kuleuven.be for the current status of the review."
Reviewer Guidelines
1. Every paper submitted to International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research (IJSDIR) is sent to three reviewers. Since we await all three reviews before deciding on the publication of the paper, please do not delay your review.
2. In conducting your review, please remember that the IJSDIR aims to further the scientific endeavor underpinning the development, implementation and use of Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDIs). We encourage manuscripts from broad multi-disciplinary backgrounds including social and environmental sciences, and engineering, deploying also critical and interpretative methodologies. Articles in the following areas are particularly welcome: Spatial and Network Technologies, Distributed Spatial databases and metadata, Methods, Information Policies, and Applications and Impacts of SDIs.
3. Articles on applications are encouraged to be more than a mere description, but to provide a critical reflection on the underlying drivers, of what seemed to work and what did not. Analyses of failures are also welcomed as there is much to learn from these experiences.
4. In the rationale of your recommendation, please focus on WHY the paper should be accepted/rejected, rather than summarizing the paper.
5. Please address the following in your comments to authors: originality, technical quality, knowledge of area, presentation, and accessibility to the broad scientific community (see Article Review Form).
6. Try to be as informative and constructive as possible in your comments. In particular, if you are recommending changes, try to include comments on how to improve the paper in respect to its structure, contents, and literature review. If you feel the paper should be rejected, try to describe the issues that must be addressed to make the paper acceptable.
7. All reviews are to be submitted in digital form through the IJSDIR web site. Instructions are sent to reviewers with the request to review an article.
Evaluation criteria
IJSDIR supports multiple type of submission. The distinctions should be carefully noted when reviewing a particular contribution. Notably, a reviewer might recommend a re-classification as part of his/her summary of the rationale (item 14 below).
The generic evaluation criteria for all submissions are as follows:
- Is the paper written in grammatically correct and clear English? (Yes/No)
- Is the writing style succinct and appropriate to the work? (Yes/No)
- Is the title appropriate to the content? (Yes/No)
- Does the summary accurately describe the content of the paper? (Yes/No)
- Is the length of the paper appropriate to the content? (Short/Appropriate/Long)
- Are the conclusions borne out by the reported results? (Yes/No)
- Are tables and figures necessary and appropriate? (Yes/No)
- How do you judge the paper’s originality, i.e. novelty, degree of innovation?*
- How do you judge the paper’s technical quality, i.e. thoroughness, completeness?*
- How do you judge the paper’s relevance to IJSDIR. i.e. interest to the scientific community?*
- How do you judge the paper’s presentation, i.e. clarity, readability?*
- What is your overall rating of the paper?*
* : apply the following rating scheme:
5 Strong Accept i.e. really good paper
4 Weak Accept i.e. reasonable submission and worth support
3 Neutral i.e. of borderline merit
2 Weak Reject i.e. I don't think it can be published in its present form, but I won't object if other reviewers accept it
1 Strong Reject i.e. must reject
As a reviewer you are also requested to provide:
13. Confidence in the rating? L(OW)/A(VG)/H(IGH)
14. A short summary of the rationale for your recommendation.
Here, please focus on WHY the paper should be accepted/rejected, rather than summarizing the paper.
15. Detailed comments to authors.
Here, please try to be as informative and constructive as possible in your comments. In particular, if you are recommending changes, try to include comments on how to improve the paper in respect to its structure, contents, and literature review. If you feel the paper should be rejected, try to describe the issues that must be addressed to make the paper acceptable.
Submission of Reviews
In order to submit your review, please log in with your user account and password, select the article under your review, upload a duly filled review form and indicate your final recommendation.