Peer Review Policy

The editorial team accepts scientific manuscripts in the field of settlement science and technology, from both within and outside the Research and Development Center for Housing and Settlements.

A double-blind peer review process is implemented, whereby both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous to each other.

Each manuscript will be reviewed by two independent reviewers.

Key Aspects to be Considered in the Review Process:

  • Promptness: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise relevant to the subject of the submitted manuscript. Preference is given to reviewers who are familiar with electronic publishing. Reviewers must respond promptly to editorial assignments.

  • Confidentiality: All manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. They should not be shared or discussed with others unless authorized by the editor.

  • Objectivity: Manuscript reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly and support them with sound arguments.

  • Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers should identify whether the manuscript lacks appropriate in-text citations. Claims based on previously conducted observations, derivations, or arguments must be accompanied by relevant references. Reviewers should also inform the editor if they detect any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript and other published works.

  • Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by reviewers for their own research purposes. Information obtained through the peer review process must remain confidential and not be used for personal gain. Reviewers must avoid conflicts of interest involving personal, political, financial, academic, or religious biases that may influence the review process.

Manuscript Review Guidelines

  • Review criteria include accuracy of content, degree of originality, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the journal's scope. Editors have the authority to request revisions or reject manuscripts based on reviewers’ recommendations.

  • Provide comments on the scientific merit and research value of the manuscript within the specified time frame. Inform the editor promptly if you are unable to review the manuscript, and suggest alternative potential reviewers when possible.

  • Avoid unconstructive comments and personal criticisms.

  • Refrain from contacting the authors directly without the editor’s permission.

  • Reviewers have the right to suggest improvements to the manuscript without altering its content and meaning. Editors will communicate with the authors if changes to the manuscript’s content are deemed necessary. Authors remain responsible for the opinions and views expressed in the manuscript.

  • Pay attention to ethical clearance issues such as substantial similarity with other published articles, "salami slicing," or duplicate publication.

  • Claims that are based on previously published research must be supported with relevant citations.

  • Alert the editors to any potential conflicts of interest. Information gained through the peer review process must remain confidential and not be used for personal benefit.

  • Protect readers from erroneous or unverifiable research.