Article 1 The review and publication approval of papers submitted to the Journal of Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (hereinafter referred to as JPNT) are to follow this policy. Technical papers and short papers are also regarded as acceptable papers.

Article 2 The editors of submitted papers are recommended by the Editor-in-Chief, and the reviewers are recommended by the handling editors and appointed by the Editor-in-Chief.

Article 3 The list of reviewers is not to be disclosed.

Article 4 Review details are not to be disclosed to anyone other than the authors.

Article 5 The publication decision of a paper is determined based on the reviews from at least two reviewers.

[Revised on November 05, 2015]

Article 6 Review decisions are classified into four types: “acceptance,” “acceptance after revision,” “another round of review after revision,” and “rejection.”

(1) Papers with the decision of “acceptance” are approved for publication without further revision.

(2) Regarding papers with the decision of “acceptance after revision,” the authors make revisions to the issues pointed out by the reviewers, the handling editors check them and recommend acceptance, and the Editor-in-Chief finally confirms and determines whether to publish the papers or not.

(3) Regarding papers with the decision of “another round of review after revision,” the authors make revisions to the issues pointed out by the reviewers and undergo another round of the review process.

(4) Regarding papers with the decision of “rejection,” the Editor-in-Chief notifies the authors that the submitted papers cannot be published by JPNT.

Article 7 If the reviewers determine that the content of the papers falls into one of the following categories, the review decision is “postponed.” The reviewers specifically point out the issues and request revision or supplementation from the authors. The papers revised by the authors are subject to another round of review by the previous reviewers.

(1) If there is no clear distinction between the authors’ research findings and those of others.

(2) If the key research contents are unclear.

(3) If indications or explanations about figures or tables are insufficient or unclear.

(4) Other cases in which revisions are deemed necessary.

Article 8 If the reviewers determine that the content of the papers falls into one of the following categories, the review decision should be “rejection,” and detailed reasons should be provided.

(1) If the originality is unclear.

(2) If the facts or concepts discovered by the authors in the paper are not clear, or if the analysis or discussion from a different perspective than the methods or viewpoints appearing in the cited literature is not clearly presented.

(3) Other cases in which the paper is deemed inappropriate for publication in JPNT

Article 9 If the reviews of the two reviewers regarding whether to accept the paper or not are conflicting, the decision can be made by the handling editor. If it is difficult to make the decision, a third reviewer will review the paper, and the handling editor can make the decision with reference to this reviewer’s review.

Article 10 Papers may be returned to the authors without review if the Editor-in-Chief acknowledges that the papers do not follow the manuscript preparation guidelines of JPNT.

Article 11 For manuscripts written in foreign languages, the Editor-in-Chief may recommend the authors to revise or rewrite the papers for submission if the context is unclear or if it is difficult to understand grammatically.

Article 12 The reviewers should review the assigned manuscript and submit their reviews to IPNT within 3 weeks (21 days) after the assignment, in principle.

Article 13 IPNT sends the reviews to the authors within 1 week of receiving them from the reviewers.

Article 14 If reviewers fail to submit their reviews within 3 weeks (21 days) after receiving the review request, the review request may be revoked. In this case, the manuscript must be immediately destroyed.