SOP of Manuscript Management

1. Purpose

This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) establishes the manuscript management workflow of GeoHuman: People, Place, and Power. It is designed to ensure that all submitted manuscripts are handled transparently, consistently, ethically, and in accordance with international standards of scholarly publishing.

The SOP regulates the full editorial process, including manuscript submission, administrative screening, editorial assessment, plagiarism checking, peer review, revision, final decision, copyediting, production, publication, indexing preparation, and post-publication management.

2. Scope

This SOP applies to all manuscripts submitted to GeoHuman: People, Place, and Power, including research articles, review articles, theoretical papers, methodological papers, case studies, short communications, and special issue manuscripts.

The procedure applies to all parties involved in the publication process, including authors, editors-in-chief, managing editors, section editors, reviewers, copyeditors, layout editors, proofreaders, and the publisher.

3. Editorial Principles

The journal applies the following editorial principles:

1. All manuscripts must be evaluated based on academic merit, originality, methodological rigor, relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, ethical compliance, and contribution to the field.
2. Editorial decisions must not be influenced by the authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religion, political view, ethnicity, or personal background.
3. The journal applies a double-blind peer review system, where the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential during the review process.
4. All manuscripts must undergo initial editorial screening before being sent for peer review.
5. The editorial team reserves the right to reject manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s scope, ethical standards, technical requirements, or academic quality.
6. The publisher must not interfere with editorial decisions.
7. Final publication decisions are the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief, based on recommendations from section editors and peer reviewers.

4. Manuscript Submission

All manuscripts must be submitted through the journal’s online submission system. Manuscripts submitted by email are not processed unless there is a technical problem with the online system and the editorial office has approved an alternative submission route.

Authors must ensure that the manuscript:

1. Fits the aims and scope of the journal.
2. Has not been published previously.
3. Is not under consideration by another journal.
4. Follows the journal template and author guidelines.
5. Includes complete author names, affiliations, email addresses, and ORCID IDs where available.
6. Includes title, abstract, keywords, main text, references, tables, figures, acknowledgements, and declarations.
7. Provides ethical approval information where required.
8. Includes funding, conflict of interest, data availability, and AI-assisted technology declarations.

5. Administrative Screening

After submission, the Managing Editor conducts an administrative screening to check whether the manuscript complies with the journal’s technical requirements.

The administrative screening includes:

1. Completeness of manuscript files.
2. Compliance with the journal template.
3. Completeness of author metadata.
4. Suitability of title, abstract, and keywords.
5. Completeness of figures, tables, captions, and references.
6. Declaration of funding, conflict of interest, ethics approval, data availability, and AI-assisted technology use.
7. Compliance with citation and reference style.
8. Removal of author identity from the blinded manuscript file, where applicable.

Manuscripts that do not meet the administrative requirements will be returned to the author for technical revision before editorial screening.

6. Scope and Editorial Screening

After passing administrative screening, the manuscript is assigned to the Editor-in-Chief or a relevant Section Editor for initial editorial assessment.

The editorial screening evaluates:

1. Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.
2. Originality and contribution to the field.
3. Clarity of research problem and objectives.
4. Appropriateness of methodology.
5. Academic quality of analysis and discussion.
6. Quality of language and structure.
7. Ethical compliance.
8. Suitability for peer review.

The editor may make one of the following initial decisions:

1. Proceed to plagiarism check and peer review.
2. Request preliminary revision before peer review.
3. Reject without peer review due to mismatch with scope, weak academic quality, ethical concerns, duplicate submission, or serious technical problems.

7. Plagiarism and Similarity Check

All manuscripts that pass editorial screening must undergo a similarity check using reliable plagiarism detection software.

The similarity report is reviewed by the editorial team. The decision is not based solely on the percentage of similarity but also on the nature, source, and distribution of the similarity.

The manuscript may be rejected or returned for revision if it contains:

1. Substantial unattributed copying.
2. Text recycling without proper citation.
3. Improper paraphrasing.
4. Fabricated references.
5. Unethical duplication of previously published work.
6. Excessive similarity in the introduction, methodology, discussion, or conclusion.

The journal normally expects manuscripts to have a similarity level within an acceptable academic range, provided that all sources are properly cited and no evidence of plagiarism is found.

8. Reviewer Selection

The Section Editor selects reviewers based on their expertise, publication record, methodological competence, and relevance to the manuscript topic.

Reviewers must meet the following criteria:

1. Have expertise relevant to the manuscript.
2. Have no conflict of interest with the authors.
3. Be able to provide objective and constructive comments.
4. Agree to maintain confidentiality.
5. Complete the review within the agreed timeframe.
6. Declare any potential conflict of interest before accepting the review invitation.

At least two independent reviewers are assigned to each manuscript. Additional reviewers may be invited if the first two reviews are contradictory or insufficient for decision-making.

9. Double-Blind Peer Review

GeoHuman: People, Place, and Power applies a double-blind peer review process.

During peer review:

1. Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
2. Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
3. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on academic merit, originality, methodology, clarity, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal.
4. Reviewers provide confidential comments to the editor and constructive comments to the author.
5. Reviewers must not use unpublished information from the manuscript for personal advantage.
6. Reviewers must not share, distribute, or discuss the manuscript with others without editorial permission.

10. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

1. Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.
2. Originality and novelty.
3. Clarity of title, abstract, and keywords.
4. Strength of research problem and objectives.
5. Appropriateness of theoretical framework.
6. Suitability and transparency of methodology.
7. Validity of data analysis.
8. Coherence of results and discussion.
9. Contribution to geography, spatial studies, geospatial science, environmental governance, place-based studies, or related fields.
10. Quality of figures, tables, maps, and visual materials.
11. Adequacy and relevance of references.
12. Ethical compliance.
13. Quality of academic writing.
14. Overall suitability for publication.

11. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations:

1. Accept Submission.
2. Minor Revision.
3. Major Revision.
4. Resubmit for Review.
5. Reject Submission.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor.

12. Editorial Decision

After receiving reviewer reports, the editor evaluates the comments and makes an editorial decision.

Possible decisions include:

1. Accept Submission
   The manuscript is accepted without further substantive revision.
2. Minor Revision
   The manuscript requires limited corrections, clarification, formatting adjustment, or minor content improvement.
3. Major Revision
   The manuscript requires substantial improvement in argumentation, methodology, data analysis, structure, discussion, or references.
4. Resubmit for Review
   The manuscript requires major restructuring and must be reviewed again after revision.
5. Reject Submission
   The manuscript is rejected because it does not meet the journal’s academic, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements.

The decision letter must clearly summarize the editorial decision and provide reviewer comments to guide the author’s revision.

13. Revision by Authors

Authors must revise the manuscript according to the editor’s and reviewers’ comments.

The revised submission must include:

1. Revised manuscript.
2. Response to reviewers.
3. Highlighted or tracked changes version, where requested.
4. Additional files, figures, tables, or ethical documents if required.

Authors must respond to each reviewer comment clearly and respectfully. If authors disagree with a comment, they must provide a reasoned academic explanation.

Failure to submit the revision within the specified period may result in withdrawal of the manuscript from the editorial process.

14. Second-Round Review

A revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers when:

1. The manuscript previously received a major revision decision.
2. The revisions involve substantial methodological, analytical, or theoretical changes.
3. The editor needs expert confirmation before making a final decision.
4. Reviewer comments are contradictory and require further evaluation.

For minor revisions, the editor may assess the revised manuscript without sending it back to reviewers.

15. Final Acceptance

A manuscript may be accepted when:

1. It fits the aims and scope of the journal.
2. It has passed peer review.
3. It meets ethical and technical requirements.
4. The authors have adequately addressed reviewer and editor comments.
5. The manuscript is original and academically sound.
6. The references, figures, tables, and declarations are complete.
7. The final version is suitable for copyediting and production.

The acceptance letter is issued by the Editor-in-Chief or authorized editor.

16. Copyediting

After acceptance, the manuscript enters the copyediting stage.

Copyediting includes:

1. Grammar and language improvement.
2. Consistency of terminology.
3. Formatting according to journal style.
4. Verification of headings, tables, figures, captions, and citations.
5. Checking completeness of declarations.
6. Checking author names, affiliations, and correspondence details.
7. Ensuring references are complete, accurate, and consistently formatted.

Copyediting does not change the substance of the article without author approval.

17. Layout and Proofreading

After copyediting, the manuscript is prepared in the journal layout format.

The layout process includes:

1. Formatting the article according to the journal template.
2. Assigning article metadata.
3. Placing tables, figures, maps, and captions correctly.
4. Adding journal identity, volume, issue, year, page range or article number, DOI if available, copyright, and license information.
5. Preparing the final PDF and online metadata.

Authors are given the opportunity to check the proof before publication. At the proof stage, authors may only correct typographical errors, author metadata, formatting errors, and minor factual mistakes. Major content changes are not allowed unless approved by the editor.

18. DOI and Metadata Registration

When DOI registration is available, each published article must receive a unique DOI.

The editorial office must ensure that:

1. Each DOI is unique and not reused.
2. DOI metadata matches the article title, author names, affiliations, abstract, keywords, volume, issue, year, and references.
3. The DOI resolves to the article landing page, not directly to the PDF file.
4. Any correction to the article metadata is updated in the DOI registration system.
5. DOI information is displayed consistently on the OJS article page and PDF file.

Articles must not display inactive, duplicate, or placeholder DOI numbers.

19. Publication

After final proof approval, the article is published online through the journal website.

The published article must include:

1. Journal title.
2. Article title.
3. Author names and affiliations.
4. Corresponding author information.
5. Abstract and keywords.
6. Article history.
7. DOI, if available.
8. Volume, issue, year, and page range or article number.
9. Full text PDF.
10. References.
11. Funding statement.
12. Conflict of interest statement.
13. Data availability statement.
14. Ethical approval statement, where applicable.
15. AI-assisted technology statement.
16. Copyright and license statement.

20. Article Withdrawal

Authors may request withdrawal before the manuscript is accepted.

Withdrawal requests must include a clear reason and must be submitted by the corresponding author. The editorial team may reject a withdrawal request if the manuscript has already reached the final production stage, except in cases involving ethical or legal concerns.

Manuscripts may also be withdrawn by the editor if:

1. The authors fail to respond for a prolonged period.
2. The manuscript is found to be under review elsewhere.
3. The manuscript contains ethical violations.
4. The authors fail to provide required documents.
5. The authors do not complete the revision within the required timeframe.

21. Post-Publication Corrections

The journal allows post-publication corrections when an error is identified after publication.

Corrections may include:

1. Typographical errors affecting meaning.
2. Incorrect author affiliation.
3. Metadata errors.
4. Errors in tables, figures, or captions.
5. Minor factual errors that do not invalidate the findings.

A correction notice may be published when the correction affects the scholarly record.

22. Retraction and Expression of Concern

The journal may retract an article if there is clear evidence of:

1. Plagiarism.
2. Data fabrication or falsification.
3. Duplicate publication.
4. Unethical research.
5. Manipulated peer review.
6. Serious error invalidating the findings.
7. Undisclosed conflict of interest affecting the integrity of the article.
8. Copyright infringement.

An expression of concern may be issued when an investigation is ongoing and the evidence is not yet conclusive.

Retraction decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the editorial board and publisher.

23. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written appeal to the editorial office.

The appeal must include:

1. Manuscript title.
2. Submission ID.
3. Explanation of the appeal.
4. Evidence supporting the appeal.
5. Clear response to reviewer or editor comments.

Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editorial board member who was not involved in the original decision.

The journal also accepts complaints related to editorial process, ethical concerns, reviewer conduct, publication delay, or post-publication issues.

24. Conflict of Interest Management

All editors, reviewers, and authors must declare potential conflicts of interest.

A conflict of interest may include:

1. Personal relationship.
2. Institutional relationship.
3. Financial interest.
4. Academic competition.
5. Recent collaboration.
6. Supervisory relationship.
7. Political or ideological conflict that may affect objectivity.

Editors and reviewers with a conflict of interest must decline involvement in the manuscript handling process.

25. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts are confidential documents.

Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose, share, copy, or use manuscript content before publication. Information obtained during the editorial process must not be used for personal, academic, financial, or competitive advantage.

26. Publication Schedule and Regularity

The journal publishes according to its stated publication frequency.

The editorial office is responsible for maintaining publication regularity by:

1. Monitoring manuscript flow.
2. Ensuring timely editorial screening.
3. Assigning reviewers efficiently.
4. Sending reminders to reviewers and authors.
5. Maintaining issue planning.
6. Avoiding publication delays.
7. Ensuring that each issue is published according to schedule.

27. Editorial Workflow Timeline

The normal editorial workflow is as follows:

1. Administrative screening: 3–7 working days.
2. Editorial screening: 7–14 working days.
3. Similarity check: 3–7 working days.
4. Peer review: 3–6 weeks.
5. Author revision: 2–4 weeks.
6. Second review or editorial evaluation: 2–4 weeks.
7. Copyediting and layout: 1–3 weeks.
8. Proofreading: 3–7 working days.
9. Final publication: according to the journal issue schedule.

The timeline may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision quality, and editorial workload.