Dr. Russell G. Congalton, Editor-in-Chief, selects reviewers for manuscripts submitted to Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing (PE&RS) for peer review. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for insuring that there are no conflicts-of-interest between reviewers and authors of submitted manuscripts. The names of individuals serving as reviewers in a calendar year will be published at least once per year in PE&RS.
The manuscript review process is double-blind. That is, reviewers are not informed of the names or affiliations of authors, and authors are not provided with the identities of reviewers. It is our objective to insure that all reviews are conducted strictly on the merits of the manuscript. The reviewer, as an informed, qualified “peer”, is responsible for evaluating the technical quality of the manuscript and assessing its worthiness for publication in PE&RS. All manuscripts submitted for review are considered confidential.
Submitting Your Review
The Manuscript Coordinator, Ms. Jeanie Congalton, will email the review form as well as the full manuscript to the reviewer. The review form is a PDF that should be opened by Adobe Reader version 7.0 or higher. If the reviewer uses an incompatible viewer such as Foxit, or an older version of either Acrobat or Adobe, the form may appear to work properly but will be unusable when returned. The reviewer should complete the entire review form, save it to the computer, print a copy of the completed review, and then return the completed form to firstname.lastname@example.org.
- If you do not understand the message or the presentation, the manuscript probably needs a re-write. Offer suggestions or point out paragraphs that are not clear, but do not assume responsibility for re-writing the manuscript.
- Engage in constructive criticism -- avoid sarcasm in your review comments. Always treat the author(s) with respect even if you do not agree with their arguments or conclusions.
- Read through the manuscript once for content, flow, and message; then re-read it for comments, suggestions, and obvious errors.
- Compare citations to references. They should be mutual and complementary. References without citations and citations without references should be noted.
- Spend quality time, but not excessive time, on minutiae unless that is your desire.
- Suggested amount of time for a review is 2-3 hours. One hour to read the manuscript, 1-2 hours for comments, suggestions, and filling in the manuscript review form.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What if I am not qualified to comment on some sections of the manuscript?
In the majority of cases, reviewers are selected who are expert in the subject(s) addressed in a manuscript. Occasionally, a manuscript will involve several “categories” of knowledge, or merge several technologies. Since several qualified reviewers are needed for each manuscript, the editorial staff tries to select individuals who represent the breadth of topics presented in a given manuscript. You need not be expert in all of them.
2. How much editing should I do as a reviewer?
Not much, if any, according to your own desires. Remember that your job is to evaluate the worthiness of the manuscript for publication. It should be technically sound (but it is not your job to make it that way), readable (not too mathematical, or if so, at least the mathematics are necessary to understand the arguments), concise and appropriately illustrated. If there are errors of omission and commission, your evaluation should indicate where improvements could be made. Ultimately, the author(s) is(are) responsible for the technical quality of their work. With your assistance, our only goal is to publish the best manuscripts to enhance the value of PE&RS for our membership and enhance the careers of the contributors to our journal. In the end, the author(s) are responsible for making their contributions error free and technically accurate.
3. Should I correct the grammar and syntax on a manuscript where it is evident that English is not the author’s first language?
No, unless you have the time and a compelling need to fix the English language. As editor, I try to return manuscripts to these authors requesting they find an English language expert to edit and revise the text. However, this judgment is based only on a quick reading of the paper. A few manuscripts might slip through. The editorial staff appreciates that reviewers are volunteering their time and do not want to frustrate them by sending manuscripts that are in “unacceptable” condition.
4. For what am I not responsible?
You are not responsible for writing or re-writing the manuscript. If it is in bad condition by any of the criteria given above, your review should indicate where the manuscript needs improvement. It is not your job to educate the author(s), edit English grammar, correct mathematical notation nor prove your expertise on every matter related to the manuscript.
Last revised on June 2009