How publishing works in this field
The split runs through everything — methods, citation style, expected length, what counts as evidence. Physical geography papers are assessed on measurement, modelling and uncertainty; human geography papers on theory, positionality and the ethics of fieldwork. Journals are clearly identified with one side even when their titles are not.
Spatial data brings specific expectations. Coordinate reference system, projection, resolution and vintage all belong in the methods, and maps are expected to carry scale, north arrow, projection and source. Where the data is derived from a licensed source, the licence usually constrains what can be redistributed.
What slows papers down here
Modifiable areal unit effects undercut quantitative papers: results that change when the spatial units change need to be tested rather than assumed stable, and reviewers in quantitative geography ask about this directly.
On the human side, positionality and consent in fieldwork are now standard reviewer concerns — who was spoken to, under what relationship, with what power difference, and how participants could decline. A methods section that reports only sampling is read as incomplete.
Worth reading next
Questions we are asked in this field
Read the last two issues rather than the title. Look at whether papers are theory-led or measurement-led, which journals they cite, and how long they are. A physical paper in a human journal is desk-rejected on fit, and vice versa.
Scale, orientation, projection and coordinate reference system, a legend, and the data source with its date. Journals also specify minimum resolution and file format, and licensed base maps may need permission for open-access reuse.
In much of human geography, yes — reviewers expect an account of your relationship to the people and place studied. It is not a confession; it is methodological information about how the data came to exist.