Review procedure

By submitting an article for publication in “Architecture and Town Planning Quarterly”, you agree to submit it to the review procedure. The procedure for reviewing articles is based on: the guidelines of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education – contained in the publication 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.

"Architecture and Town Planning Quarterly" uses a double-blind review procedure: The Editorial Committee does not disclose the names of the reviewers to the authors, the reviewers do not know the names of the authors when working on the review. Each article is assessed by one reviewer.

Submissions undergo a preliminary assessment by the Editorial Committee. Submissions that are not related to the scope of the journal or are not scientific in nature are rejected. Incomplete articles (not containing all the elements indicated in the For Authors tab) are sent back for completion.

Once the Editorial Committee is satisfied that the submitted article is in line with the scope of the journal and that it is complete, it submits the material for review.

The review process involves independent reviewers/independent reviewers. The Editorial Committee selects reviewers on the basis of competence, as evidenced by academic and professional achievements.

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 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, they 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. The reviewers" conclusions form the basis for the Editorial Committee's decision to publish the article.

The Editorial Committee communicates the results of the review to the authors, respecting the confidentiality of the reviewer's details. Reviews are not published.

In justified cases (i.e. at the request of the reviewer(s) or as a result of an appeal by the author(s) against the decision not to accept the article for publication), the Editorial Committee will refer the article for a second review. The final decision to publish an article is taken by the Editor-in-Chief.

The Editorial Committee and the reviewers make every effort to ensure that the review process does not exceed 6 weeks, but this may be extended in appropriate circumstances.

The list of reviewers is published on the "Architecture and Town Planning Quarterly" website and is also included in the paper version of the periodical.