• 1. The Organizing Committee of an ISPRS event may choose to peer review some or all technical papers submitted for presentation, in order to ensure the scientific and technical quality of the event. These Guidelines are designed to standardize the review process for ISPRS events, and to ensure that it is transparent to authors. They have been developed specifically for ISPRS Symposia and Workshops. They may be revised in the future to include the review of papers for ISPRS quadrennial Congresses.

• 2. The Organizing Committee of Technical Commission Symposia and WG events may choose to accept for the event, only reviewed full papers, or both reviewed full papers and papers based on the acceptance of an extended abstract. The two groups of papers may be published in separate volumes or compiled separately in the same volume. Full reviewed papers judged as unacceptable in the review process may be published as papers based on the acceptance of the extended abstract. Full reviewed papers shall be indicated by a heading on each page which states: "This paper has been peer reviewed by at least two ISPRS experts." Papers accepted based on extended abstract will not be considered as peer reviewed.

• 3. A Review Committee shall be appointed by the Event Organizing Committee to review the papers, comprising international experts with knowledge of the topics of the meeting.

• 4. Review process.
  • � Each presented paper shall be reviewed by at least two experts in the field.
  • � The name and institution of the author(s) AND reviewers of each paper shall be kept confidential from one another. However, the reviewers may specifically waive their confidentiality rights (anonymity).
  • � Invited papers shall be reviewed by at least one reader.
  • � In the case of disputed reviews, an additional review should be obtained, or the Chair of the Technical Program Committee/Organizing Committee should resolve the dispute
  • � Reviewers may judge papers according to categories such as: 1) scientific contribution 2) professional innovation, 3) review papers, 4) others.
  • � Reviews may not be as strict as for peer-reviewed journals. Reviewers may assess papers from young or first-time authors, and authors from developing countries, recognizing the context and scope of the environment in which they reside.
  • � The assessment of the papers according to the criteria given in the attached table should be clearly defined with a score of e.g. 1-4.
  • � Authors shall be informed of the method of computation of the overall score.
  • � The reviewers should take into account the possibilities of minor improvements to the paper for final submission, before rejecting it.
  • � Reviewers should also recommend minor improvements to the English expression when appropriate,
  • � Recommendations for major revisions should be avoided, and in such cases the paper should be rejected.
  • � Reviewers should not simply complete the review form, but also explain their judgement with separate comments, especially when their scores are low.
  • � Overall assessment criteria for papers shall be 'accept', 'accept with minor revision', 'reject'.
  • � The duration of the review process should be no longer than FOUR WEEKS.

REVIEWER INSTRUCTIONS AND REVIEW FORM

The enclosed paper(s) has been submitted for the ISPRS sponsored event �. Your cooperation would be appreciated in reviewing the paper(s), and recommending acceptance or rejection for inclusion in a volume of the International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences of the above event, as a peer reviewed full paper. Please comment on this manuscript using the points attached, and return it electronically to the address below. Presented paper(s) are limited to 6 pages, and Invited Papers 12 pages, as given in the ISPRS Instructions for Authors (Appendix 5). All comments shall be passed to the author(s) anonymously (unless reviewer waives his/her confidentiality).

Please return the checklist and any additional sheets and the manuscript (if annotated) within FOUR WEEKS. If this is not possible, please notify the Chairman of the Technical Programme Committee/Organizing Committee (by e-mail) and return the manuscript within one we

ek the latest after receipt of the paper. The reviewers are expected to assist the author(s) with CONSTRUCTIVE REMARKS and not just complete the checklist. Please rate the manuscript on a scale of 1 to 4 (1=poor, 2=acceptable, 3=good, 4=excellent) with respect to the items in the attached table. Give the reasons for your ratings under item 21.

Send the filled-out Review Form including separate comments under item 21. and possibly the paper annotated with comments to:

Full details of address of Organizing Committee including e-mail address to be added.

SCORE FOR REVIEW OF PAPERS FOR ... ISPRS EVENT

Paper title:

Reviewer's name and full address: (Will be treated as CONFIDENTIAL unless waiver box is checked.)

			_ I waive confidentiality
			_ I do not waive confidentiality