International Journal of Geographical Information Science

Review this journal Show reviews

Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of International Journal of Geographical Information Science has not yet provided information for this page.

Space for journal cover image
Issues per year
n/a
Articles published last year
n/a
Manuscripts received last year
n/a
% accepted last year
n/a
% immediately rejected last year
n/a
Open access status
n/a
Manuscript handling fee?
n/a
Kind of complaint procedure
n/a
Two-year impact factor
n/a
Five-year impact factor
n/a

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 10 reviews)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 2.0 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 3.7 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection 5 days compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 2.6 compare →
Average number of review rounds 2.2 compare →
Quality of review reports 4.2 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 2.9 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 4.4 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 17.3 weeks. Overall rating: 4 (very good). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
IJGIS has a great reputation in the field for a reason. The editors were meticulous and responsible (checking each paper in detail, together with the code and data) and have promptly replied to our emails, and the reviewers were pretty good: insightful, fair, comprehensive, and genuinely inclined to help to improve the paper and see it published. Their comments have certainly contributed to improving the paper. The downsides are that the first round of the reviews took more time than it should (4 months), and that the publisher (Taylor & Francis) took a long time to publish the paper online, and made many mistakes in the proof of the PDF, e.g. they added errors that didn't exist in the submitted version, and they sent us a proof with the repeated errors despite being clearly instructed to fix them. The provided link for free sharing of the article is valid for only 50 readers, in contrast with some other publishers that provide unlimited access during the first month or so. We considered going open access, but the OA fee is unreasonably high. In conclusion, great journal and great editors, but bad publisher.