of reviewing scientific articles
in the journal "Geodesy and Cartography"
1. Generalities
1.1. These Rules regulate the procedure of considering and reviewing scientific articles submitted in the journal "Geodesy and Cartography" founded by the PLS "Roskadastr".
1.2. Reviewing scientific articles in the journal "Geodesy and Cartography" (hereinafter – The Journal) is to support a high scientific and theoretical level of published materials and select the most valuable and topical (promising) scientific works.
1.3. All materials for publishing in the Journal (scientific articles, reviews etc) i. e. preliminarily checked, are subject to reviewing (see. P. 2).
2. Preliminary checking articles by Editors
2.1. All articles received  shall be recorded by the Executive Secretary in the log of received papers. 
Information to be registered there:
- The date of the article;
- Its title;
- About the author / authors (Full name, place of employment, position, academic degree / title, mail and/or  e-mail address, office and home phone, cell phone).
2.2. All articles received shall be pre-checked for completeness and validity of the submitted documents, including those containing information about the author / authors
and contracts for the publishing a scientific article in the journal "Geodesy and Cartography" (Appendix # 2). In accordance with that the authors agree to publishing the article in the Journal and placing its electronic version in the Internet (online journal and website eLIBRARY, Web of Science , Scopus, and other bibliographic databases and Scientific Library).
2.3. The following materials are to be forwarded to the Editorial for preliminary testing:
2.3.1. Application for placing the article in the Journal (Appendix # 1);
2.3.2. A copy of the article thoroughly corrected and signed by the author / authors, according to the requirements for publishing in the Journal (Appendix # 3).
2.3.3. A qualified conclusion on the possibility to publish the article for common access (Appendix # 2) 
2.3.4. The author's card (questionnaire) should be filled in and submitted in two formats: Word with the possibility of editing and a scan of the card (questionnaire) with the author's signature (Appendix # 4).
2.3.5. Consent to the processing of personal data (Appendix # 5);
2.3.6. Post-graduate students and applicants for scientific degree shall submit the article for publishing recommended by the research supervisor (Appendix # 6). The signatures of the supervisors are attested in the established order.
2.4. The Editorial shall inform the author about receiving the materials within a day.
2.5. Preliminary checking shall be carried out by the editors within 7 working days after receiving the materials. The results of the checking are reported to the authors by e-mail.
2.6. After the preliminary checking the article may be taken in to consideration (with the subsequent reviewing) (see. P. 3), or rejected as inappropriate to formal requirements (Appendix # 3).
2.7. The reason for rejecting the materials may also be:
2.7.2.Existing some restrictions;
2.7.3. High level of borrowings detected;
2.7.4. Publishing the article in any other publications.
2.8. If the article is adopted the author shall send the original materials (see pts 2.3.1. – 2.3.5) by mail to the following address: 125313 26 Onezhskaya st., Moscow, Russia, PLS "Roskadastr".
2.9. If the submitted article is rejected the author is offered to eliminate the incongruities marked at the preliminary checking and submit the article again at the time agreed by the Executive Secretary (with regards to the schedule of preparing and issuing the Journal). 
2.10. Article submitted again shall be registered as a new one.
2.11. Materials adopted for publishing shall not be forwarded back to authors.
3. Scientific reviewing the articles
3.1. All scientific articles shall be reviewed after preliminary checking.
3.2. Cooperation of the authors and reviewers is coordinated by the editorial staff.
3.3. Reviewing the articles is free for the authors.
3.4. The following models reviewing: can be used
3.4.1. Single blind reviewing: the reviewer knows the name of the author, but the author does not know the name of the reviewer,
3.4.2. Double-blind reviewing: the  reviewer and the author do not know the names of each other.
3.4.3. In each particular case, the model of reviewing and the amount of reviewers and may be varied.
3.5. The Executive Secretary forwards the article to a member of the editorial board, supervising the appropriate field of activity/ scientific discipline for reviewing Herewith the reviewer shall be notified within a day about sending the materials by e-mail.
3.6. Along with the article the reviewer gets a cover letter, with the request of the Executive Secretary to review the article. In the letter there is also some information about the terms and conditions of the scientific reviewing.
3.7. The reviewer shall study the received article within a fortnight and to send the review to the editorial office (by e-mail and then by post), or an explained refusal to review.
3.8. The reviewer is recommended to use a specially designed form of reviewing (Appendix # 6), which shall be filled in, noting the sign «X» or "+" as an appropriate answer for each question. If there are any remarks or negative comments on the item an explanation in the appropriate box "Comments" is required.
3.9. The review can also be made in any form with an obligatory coverage of the following clauses:
3.9.1. The title of the article, the author’s full name (if known to the reviewer);
3.9.2. Appropriation with the topics of the Journal;
3.9.3. The accuracy and clarity of highlighting the scientific matter;
3.9.4. The topical character, originality, scientific and practical value of the research; 
3.9.5. Theoretical and methodological basis of research;
3.9.6. The credibility of the information used by the author;
3.9.7. The validity of the conclusions made by the author;
3.9.8. The completeness, representability and accuracy of the reference list;
3.9.9. The logic presentation of the material;
3.9.10.The style of presentation;
3.9.11. Correct use of terms;
3.9.12. The relevance and accuracy of figures, tables and formulae;
3.9.13.Mark if the title is informative and clear;
3.9.14. The proper selecting  keywords;
3.9.15. The quality of the annotation (how clearly and concisely the material is presented).
3.10. All the comments made by the reviewer shall be specified, and the negative assessment explained. In the final part shall make a conclusion on the results of the reviewing (see. P. 4.1.).
3.11. Prepared reviews may be forwarded to the Editorial in one of the following ways:
3.11.1 Handed directly to the Executive Secretary;
3.11.2. Sent by e-mail as a scan;
3.11.3. Sent by snail-mail (the originals).
3.12. The text of the review shall be the signed by the reviewer with the transcription (Clearly written full name) with obligatory indication of:
3.12.1.The reviewer’s scientific degree,
3.12.2. The reviewer’ position,
3.12.3. The reviewer’s e-mail addresses.
3.13. Engagement of outside reviewers is possible in the following cases:
3.13.1. there is no member of the editorial Board, supervising a certain field of activity (scientific discipline);
3.13.2. member of the editorial board is not able to make a review;
3.13.3. Editorial board does not agree with the view expressed in the review of its member;
3.13.4. The article is written by a member of the editorial board.
3.14. In these cases a resolution to engage an experienced scientist is made at the regular sitting of the editorial board. The scientist is to be the author of scientific works on the matters stated in the article. On behalf of the editorial board a letter with an appropriate request about reviewing is sent to the scientist.  The article and the list of the requirements are enclosed (Appendix # 6).
4. The decision on publishing  the article
4.1. The reviewer is to conclude the review with one of the following statements:
4.1.1. The article can be recommended for publishing in the Journal without any improvements;
4.1.2. The article can be  recommended for publishing in the Journal with some improvements (no need for any additional reviewing);
4.1.3. The article can be recommended for publishing in the Journal after making improvements and reviewing again;
4.1.4. The article cannot be recommended for publishing in the Journal.
4.2. If the reviewer recommends the article to be published after some improvements, or does not recommend the article for publishing, he shall make reasoned explanations.
4.3. After receiving the necessary review of the material submitted the decision to publish or reject the article is made. The matter is solved at the sitting of the editorial board.
4.4. If a positive resolution is made the author shall be informed adopting the material without making any improvements. A copy of the reviewing article is sent to the author by e-mail, the date of publishing (issue number) is indicated.
4.5. The article in general favourably estimated but with a significant amount of critical notices may be published as a subject of scientific discussion.
4.6. If a decision on improving the article is made a copy of the reviewing (without information about the reviewer) shall be sent to the author by e-mail. A deadline (within two months), during which the necessary improvements should be made is set. After that the article is submitted again with a copy of the first version enclosed. If the improved article is submitted after the deadline, the Editorial can postpone the date of its publishing.
4.7. The article can be improved not more than twice after which the decision of the Editorial on the expediency of publishing is final.
4.8. The article submitted to the Editorial after improving, may be reviewed by the same or another expert reviewer. The decision on that is made by the Editorial.
4.9. The reason for reviewing the article again may be following:
4.9.1.  The reviewer pleaded his  insufficient competency on the matters covered in the article;
4.9.2. An insufficient level of the primary expert conclusion;
4.9.3. Some highly disputable statements made in the article.
4.10. If the decision on rejecting a negatively estimated article is made a copy of the reviewing without indicating the reviewer is sent to the author. Other articles of such authors are considered due to general rules.
4.11. If the author disagrees with the opinion of the reviewer he can make a reasoned request to the Editorial to review his work by another expert.  The Editorial either forwards the article to another reviewer or sends the author a reasoned refusal.
4.12. Peer reviews are stored in the Editorial for 5 years after publishing the article, or the decision on rejecting it.