|
Peer Review Ethics
The Journal of Architectural and Environmental Research is committed to upholding the highest standards of professional ethics and strictly adheres to the guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) throughout its review process. Reviewers are kindly requested to carefully observe the following principles before accepting a review invitation and during the manuscript evaluation process:
1. Type of Review (Double-Blind Peer Review)
The evaluation process in this journal operates on a double-blind peer review system. This ensures that the identities of both the authors and the reviewers remain strictly confidential, guaranteeing that the assessment is based solely on the scientific merit of the manuscript and is free from any bias.
2. Confidentiality
- All manuscripts submitted for peer review must be treated as strictly confidential documents.
- Reviewers must not share the content, data, or concepts presented in an unpublished manuscript with any third party, nor may they use this privileged information for personal gain or in their own research prior to its official publication.
3. Conflict of Interest
- Reviewers should only accept invitations to review manuscripts that fall within their specific area of expertise.
- If a reviewer recognizes the author’s identity or identifies any potential conflict of interest—including personal, financial, or institutional relationships, or academic competition with the authors, research sponsors, or associated organizations—they must immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief and decline the review assignment.
4. Objectivity and Fairness
- The review process must be conducted objectively, based exclusively on academic criteria, logical reasoning, and the empirical evidence presented in the manuscript.
- Any form of personal criticism, or bias based on race, nationality, religion, or gender, is strictly prohibited.
- Reviewers must provide clear, constructive feedback accompanied by sufficient justification to assist the authors in improving the quality of their work.
5. Identification of Research Misconduct and Plagiarism
- Reviewers are obligated to notify the Editor-in-Chief immediately if they observe any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper. Suspicions of plagiarism, data fabrication, or concurrent submission must be reported along with relevant evidence.
6. Promptness and Punctuality
- Reviewers are expected to respond to review invitations promptly (preferably within 3 to 5 working days) by either accepting or declining the request via the journal’s online submission system.
- Upon accepting a review assignment, the evaluation must be completed within the designated timeframe. If a reviewer anticipates a delay or is unable to complete the review by the deadline, they must promptly inform the Executive Manager or Editor-in-Chief so that an extension can be arranged or an alternative reviewer assigned.
|
