Peer Review Statement

The Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a stringent and transparent peer review process. Our double-blind peer review system ensures the evaluation of manuscripts is conducted impartially, enhancing the quality and integrity of the research we publish. This policy outlines the steps, ethical considerations, and responsibilities involved in our peer review process.

******

» Type of Peer Review

Double-Blind Peer Review

We employ a rigorous double-blind peer review process for all research articles submitted to the journal through external peer review. In this system, both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other, minimizing bias and promoting objectivity in the evaluation.

» Peer Review Process

The peer review process aims to assist the editorial team in making well-informed decisions and to enhance the quality of papers through constructive communication with the authors. The journal’s peer review process is explained in the following paragraph:

Submission: Authors submit their manuscripts via the journal's online platform. The Editor-in-Chief performs an initial screening to assess the manuscript's suitability for the journal.
Initial Screening: If deemed appropriate, the Editor-in-Chief assigns a Section Editor through the Section Coordinators to oversee the remainder of the review process and provide a recommendation or decision.
Review: The Section Editor coordinates the review process, during which multiple independent reviewers, who remain anonymous to each other, evaluate the manuscript. The reviewers' identities are also concealed from the authors. Wherever appropriate, depending on the workload and availability, the Section Editor will assign additional reviewers.
Decision Making: Based on the reviewers' comments and the Section Editor's final opinion, the Editor-in-Chief decides to accept the paper, accept it with revisions, request resubmission, or reject it.

Acceptance: An acceptance letter is sent to the author, and the manuscript proceeds to the production phase.
Revisions Required: Authors are given the opportunity to revise and resubmit their manuscript for further evaluation.
Rejection: A rejection letter is sent to the author, and the manuscript is archived.

Copy Editing: If accepted, the manuscript is edited by the Copy Editor to ensure it adheres to the correct referencing style and journal guidelines.
Layout Editing: The Layout Editor formats the manuscript into an article, incorporating necessary links and preparing it in both PDF and HTML formats.
Proofreading: The Proof Editor reviews the formatted manuscript to confirm it is ready for publication.
Conflict Resolution: If the decisions of two reviewers diverge, the Editor may assign additional reviewers. The editorial team is committed to maintaining the objectivity and quality of reviews and will appoint additional reviewers if there are concerns about their impartiality.

The manuscript submission and the peer review process are broken down into the following steps:

» Reviewer Selection

If the manuscript passes the initial screening, the Editor-in-Chief assigns a Section Editor responsible for managing the review process and providing recommendations. The Section Editor selects multiple independent reviewers based on their expertise in the manuscript's subject area. Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest before agreeing to review. If a conflict is identified, an alternative reviewer will be appointed to maintain the integrity of the review process.

» Review Timeline

The typical review period spans approximately 8 weeks. Reviewers are expected to submit their evaluations within this timeframe to ensure a timely decision process.

» Conflict Resolution

In cases where reviewers' opinions diverge, the Editor may appoint additional reviewers to achieve a consensus and uphold the quality and objectivity of the review.

» Revision and Resubmission

If revisions are required, authors will have up to 8 weeks to submit the revised manuscript. The revised submission should include a rebuttal letter addressing each reviewer comment and a tracked changes document highlighting all modifications. Revised manuscripts may undergo another round of peer review, depending on the extent of changes made, to ensure all concerns have been adequately addressed.

» Confidentiality

All manuscripts and peer reviews are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors are prohibited from discussing the manuscript with others, except as authorized by the Editor-in-Chief. Unauthorized use or disclosure of submitted materials is strictly prohibited.

» Ethical Considerations

The Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs adheres to the ethical standards outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA). Reviewers, authors, and editors are expected to uphold integrity, confidentiality, and transparency throughout the peer review process. Violations such as plagiarism, data falsification, or undisclosed conflicts of interest will be addressed in accordance with COPE guidelines.

» Right to Appeal

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. Appeals should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief with detailed justifications.

For comprehensive details on our publication policies, including citation guidelines, updating published papers, and handling post-publication discussions, please refer to » Publication Policies , » Manuscript Preparation Guidelines .