Guidelines for Reviewers

The primary goal of these guidelines is to ensure reviewers understand their responsibilities and provide constructive feedback to assist authors in their scientific research, regardless of the outcome (Acceptance/Rejection/Revision) of the peer-review process. The guidelines are organized into ten essential points, followed by a detailed description of each. We hope you find them helpful.

Essential Points

Evaluate Manuscript Suitability: Assess if the manuscript is appropriate for the Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs.
Assess Novelty and Interest: Determine the novelty and general interest of the manuscript to the journal's readers.
Validate Experiments: Ensure the experiments described are valid.
Examine Statistical Analysis: Check if the statistical analysis is included, complete, and appropriate.
Review Conclusions: Determine if the conclusions are justified by the data.
Cite Relevant Literature: Ensure the literature is adequately cited and discussed.
Provide Constructive Criticism: Offer specific, constructive feedback to guide authors, especially when recommending revisions.
Be Realistic in Demands: Remember the revision timeframe is typically three months (six months for extensive experiments).
Make a Clear Recommendation: Decide if the manuscript is worth revising.
Comment on Presentation: Address whether the presentation or language hinders the paper's quality.

Detailed Guidelines

Before Starting Your Review:

Match with Expertise: Ensure the article aligns with your area of expertise. Notify the editor if it does not and suggest an alternate reviewer.
Time Commitment: Reviews should be completed within two weeks. Inform the editor if you cannot meet this timeframe and suggest another reviewer if possible.
Conflicts of Interest: Disclose any conflicts of interest to the editors. These do not disqualify you but must be declared.

Confidentiality: Treat all manuscript information as confidential. Do not use data from the manuscripts for personal gain. Destroy all copies of the manuscript after submitting your report. You may cite the reviewed paper after its publication in the journal.

During the Review Process:

Relevance: Comment on the manuscript's scope and interest to the journal's readers.
Novelty: Evaluate the study's originality and its advancement of the field.
Validity of Experiments: Assess the validity of the experiments and statistical methods. Note any flaws and suggest ways to address them.
Conclusions: Ensure the data supports the conclusions and identify any overlooked alternative hypotheses.
Current Literature: Check the relevance and appropriateness of cited references. Suggest additions if significant papers are missing.
Language and Presentation: Comment on the manuscript's clarity and presentation. Note any language issues that hinder comprehension.
Scientific Misconduct: Report any suspected misconduct, such as plagiarism or image manipulation. Note any signs of ‘salami’ publishing (minimal data spread across multiple publications).

Writing a Good Report:

Summarize Key Findings: Briefly outline the study’s goals, key findings, strengths, and weaknesses.
Be Comprehensive: Address all issues outlined in the detailed guidelines.
Be Objective: Respect the authors' intellectual independence and avoid insisting on a hypothesis-driven approach.
Provide Clear Recommendations: Indicate whether revising the manuscript will meet the journal's standards.
Offer Constructive Criticism: Help authors improve their work with specific suggestions.
Avoid Unnecessary Demands: Focus on significant issues rather than minor technicalities. Keep in mind the usual revision timeframe.
Be Respectful: Avoid offensive language, even in negative reports. Stick to facts and avoid personal attacks.

The Editorial Process:

Decision Process: Editors make the final decision based on reviewers' reports.
Conflicting Reviews: If reviewers disagree, editors may share reviews with reviewers for additional comments. Editors evaluate all feedback to make a decision.
Reviewer Support: If you have questions or concerns, or need assistance, please email us at editor@ijcua.com.

Reviewer Recognition:

Certificates: Reviewers can request a certificate from the editorial office to present to employers and institutions. A confirmation letter is also available upon request.
Publons: Reviewers can gain recognition for their contributions, showcase their reviewing activity, and earn merit points.

Important Notes: