Peer Review Process

 The journal “Land Management, Cadastre and Land Monitoring” applies double-blind peer review and multi-level editorial quality control. The purpose of this process is to ensure objective expert assessment, high methodological standards, and academic integrity for every publication.

 1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon receipt of a manuscript, the editorial office conducts an initial assessment to verify:

  • compliance with the journal’s thematic scope and formatting requirements;
  • the presence of clear scientific novelty and relevance;
  • the logical structure of the manuscript and the completeness of the description of methods and data.

 2. Academic Integrity Check

All manuscripts undergo mandatory plagiarism screening using specialised software tools. Manuscripts that show indications of breaches of academic integrity are not admitted for further consideration.

 3. Appointment of a Handling Editor

A manuscript that successfully passes the initial screening is assigned to a member of the Editorial Board in the relevant subject area (the handling editor) to organise the expert evaluation. Where necessary, the editor may involve independent specialists from the National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine and other research institutions.

 4. Double-Blind Peer Review

Following the handling editor’s decision, the manuscript is sent to at least two independent external reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Peer review is conducted in a double-blind format: neither authors nor reviewers are informed of each other’s identities.

The review typically covers, in particular:

  • consistency between the title and the content of the article;
  • scientific novelty and relevance;
  • completeness and transparency of reporting of materials, methods, and results;
  • correctness of statistical/analytical processing (where applicable);
  • soundness and credibility of conclusions.

 5. Decisions Based on Peer Review

Based on the peer-review outcomes, the editorial decision may be:

  • accepted for publication;
  • accepted subject to revision (minor/major revision);
  • rejected.

If revisions are requested, the author(s) submit:

  • a revised version of the manuscript within the specified timeframe; and
  • a response letter that addresses each reviewer comment point by point.

 6. Final Editorial Decision and Preparation for Publication

The final decision is made by the editorial office/editorial board on the basis of the peer-review reports and the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s standards. In the case of a positive decision, the manuscript proceeds to scholarly, language, and technical editing and production for publication.

 Indicative Timeframes

The indicative timeframe for the initial peer review is 5–10 days (which may vary depending on topic complexity and reviewer availability).