For reviewers

The procedure for reviewing articles submitted to Architecture and Urban Planning Quarterly is based on: the guidelines of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education – contained in the publication entitled Good Practice in Review Procedures in Science, the guidelines of the "COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers" and the journal's Principles of Publication Ethics.

The Editorial Committee invites the selected reviewer to evaluate the article. Articles are only made available if the invitation has been accepted.

Reviewers are obliged to comply with the Principles of Publication Ethics of "Architecture and Town Planning Quarterly".

The reviewers make a fair assessment of the articles solely on the basis of merit, without being guided by their own views or prejudices. The reviewers make comments in a clear, comprehensive and unambiguous manner. If necessary, they indicate changes in order to improve the content of the text and/or supplement the sources of the information provided and/or the clarity of the argument. Subjective comments and personal criticism are not acceptable.

The reviewers are guided by the principle of confidentiality and communicate about the assessed articles only with the Editorial Committee.

Reviewers do not use the evaluated articles for their own purposes and benefit in a way that does not comply with the Principles of Publication Ethics and standards of scientific integrity and honesty.

If a reviewer perceives a potential conflict of interest, the reviewer is obliged to withdraw from the review process. In this case, the article will be forwarded to another reviewer for assessment.

Reviewers are obliged to inform the Editorial Committee of any perceived manifestation of scientific dishonesty (such as falsification and fabrication of data, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, ghostwriting, guest authorship/honorary authorship) or violation of the accepted Principles of Publishing Ethics.

Reviewers formulate their comments in writing in the Review Form provided by the Editorial Committee. They may also additionally annotate it in the assessed text.

The review must conclude that the article should be accepted for publication as presented / that the article should be accepted for publication after factual corrections / that the article should be rejected.