Peer Review Process

Urbanism and Architecture Files journal follows a double anonymized review process. The submission will initially be assessed by our editors to determine suitability for publication in this journal. If your submission is deemed suitable, it will typically be sent to a minimum of two reviewers for an independent expert assessment of the scientific quality. The decision as to whether your article is accepted or rejected will be taken by our editors.

Our editors are not involved in making decisions about papers which they have written themselves; have been written by family members or colleagues; relate to products or services in which they have an interest.

Any such submissions will be subject to the journal’s usual procedures and peer review will be handled independently of the editor involved and their research group.

All submissions are conduted by Editorial System which ensures anonymization during peer reviewing.

Steps:
1 Submision by Editorial System
2 Editorial Assessment: -suitability for publication in journal
-compliance of the manuscript with technical and editorial requirements
-antiplagiarism analysis
3 double blind preer review
4-if reviews are positive: corrections accoring to reviewers comments (if necesarry) or
-if reviews are negative: rejection
5 After author’s corrections there is editorial correction
6 Final accteptance

After a manuscript has been accepted for peer review, the following elements are to be assessed:

Answers to relevant academic needs, the originality and suitability of research methods and findings.
Manuscript structure correctness, including: does the paper’s title correspond to its content?; does the introduction include the study’s goals?; does the abstract clearly present the study’s assumptions?; correct use of terminology, the exhaustiveness and suitability of the literature cited, the correctness of illustrative material.

In the second part, the reviewers decide whether a manuscript can be accepted unconditionally, accepted conditionally or rejected, and specify any necessary revisions or the need for additional review rounds.

The third section is a justification of the reviewer’s decision and provides space for additional remarks, commentary and recommendations for the authors.