ARCHITECTURAL INSIGHT
Reviewer Guidelines
The journal uses a two-stage, double-blind peer review process. Both authors and reviewers must stay anonymous throughout all stages of the review.
After accepting the invitation to review this manuscript, please consult the guidance below to support your evaluation. The peer review form is also attached to this document. You may also upload additional files containing detailed comments or annotated manuscripts, if necessary.
General Guidance for Reviewers
1. General Comments and Recommendations
Does the manuscript fall within the scope and aims of the journal?
Please provide a brief summary of the paper and your overall recommendation (accept, minor revisions, major revisions, reject).
2. Content Quality
Please evaluate the following aspects:
Originality and relevance of the research topic
Scholarly rigor and depth of the author’s engagement with the subject
Adequacy and relevance of the literature review
Whether the existing knowledge base has been critically examined and advanced
Appropriateness and clarity of the methodology
Effective and justified use of the evidential base
Whether the conclusions are supported by the analysis and contribute new insights to the field
3. Structure and Argumentation
Please consider whether:
The abstract accurately and succinctly summarizes the manuscript
The manuscript is logically structured, and arguments flow coherently
The introduction clearly outlines the research objectives, methodology, and structure of the paper
Arguments are adequately substantiated with evidence
The conclusion effectively synthesizes the main arguments and findings
4. Figures and Tables
Please comment on:
The relevance of tables, charts, figures, or maps in supporting the argument
Their clarity, quality, and consistency with the text
The appropriateness of formatting, captions, and referencing within the manuscript
5. Formatting and Referencing
Does the manuscript comply with the journal’s author guidelines?
Are citations and references correctly formatted according to the journal’s house style?
6. Language and Style
Is the text clear, coherent, and well written?
Is technical terminology used appropriately and without unnecessary jargon?
Please comment on the quality of English and indicate whether grammatical or stylistic improvements are required.
7. Additional Comments
Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive suggestions for improvement, including:
Clarification of arguments
Additional references where appropriate
Methodological or conceptual improvements
You may also upload annotated versions of the manuscript or separate comment files, if helpful.
COPE
International Standards for Editors and Authors
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) provides internationally recognized guidance to promote integrity, transparency, and best practice in scholarly publishing. These standards define the ethical responsibilities of editors and authors and are intended to support trustworthy academic communication.
1. Standards for Editors
Editors are accountable for everything published in their journals and must ensure that editorial decisions are based on academic merit and ethical principles.
1.1 Editorial Responsibility and Independence
Editors should:
Make publication decisions solely on the basis of the manuscript’s quality, originality, relevance, and scholarly contribution.
Maintain editorial independence from publishers, sponsors, or institutional pressures.
Ensure that editorial policies are transparent, consistent, and publicly available.
1.2 Fairness and Impartiality
Manuscripts must be evaluated without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, political views, or institutional affiliation.
Double-blind or blind peer review procedures must be respected where applicable.
1.3 Peer Review Process
Editors should:
Ensure that peer review is fair, objective, timely, and confidential.
Select reviewers with appropriate expertise and no conflicts of interest.
Monitor the quality and integrity of reviewer reports and editorial decisions.
1.4 Confidentiality
Editors must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and reviewer identities.
Information obtained during the review process must not be used for personal advantage.
1.5 Conflicts of Interest
Editors should disclose and manage any conflicts of interest.
Editors must recuse themselves from decisions where such conflicts exist.
1.6 Ethical Oversight and Misconduct
Editors should take appropriate action when ethical concerns arise, including cases of:
Plagiarism
Data fabrication or falsification
Redundant or duplicate publication
Authorship disputes
Ethical approval violations
Corrective measures may include corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern, following COPE flowcharts and guidance.
2. Standards for Authors
Authors are responsible for ensuring that their research and manuscripts meet accepted ethical and scientific standards.
2.1 Originality and Plagiarism
Submissions must be original works.
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others is required.
Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, is unacceptable.
2.2 Authorship and Contributorship
Authorship should be limited to individuals who have:
Made a substantial contribution to the conception, design, data collection, or analysis;
Participated in drafting or critically revising the manuscript;
Approved the final version for publication;
Agreed to be accountable for the work.
Honorary or guest authorship is unethical.
2.3 Data Integrity and Transparency
Data must be accurately represented and retained where possible for verification.
Methods should be described clearly to allow reproducibility.
Ethical approval must be obtained and stated where required.
2.4 Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication
Authors must not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously.
Previously published material must be clearly disclosed.
2.5 Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest
Authors must declare any financial, institutional, or personal relationships that could influence the research.
2.6 Post-publication Responsibilities
Authors must promptly inform the editor if a significant error is discovered.
Cooperation in issuing corrections or retractions is expected when necessary.
3. Purpose and Significance
COPE’s International Standards:
Safeguard academic integrity and public trust
Provide a shared ethical framework for editors, authors, and reviewers
Support compliance with international indexing and accreditation bodies
Reduce ethical, legal, and reputational risks in scholarly publishing
Standard Journal Statement (optional)
This journal adheres to the principles and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics.
Core References (COPE – Official)
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
COPE Core Practices.
Committee on Publication Ethics, London.
https://publicationethics.org/core-practicesCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Committee on Publication Ethics.
https://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conductCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Committee on Publication Ethics.
https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelinesCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
COPE Flowcharts: Handling Publication Ethics Issues.
Committee on Publication Ethics.
https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2019). COPE Core Practices.
https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2011). Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors.
https://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduc
