All research articles published in Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review. It means that, first the paper will be screened by the Editorial board of the journal. If the quality and content of the paper was suitable with the aim and objectives of Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs , then the paper will be sent to at least two anonymous reviewers.
Each submitted manuscript is evaluated on the following basis:
- the originality of its contribution to the field of scholarly publishing;
- the soundness of its theory and methodology given the topic;
- the coherence of its analysis;
- its ability to communicate to readers (grammar and style).
Therefore, the manuscript submission and peer review process are broken down into the following steps:
- The Author submits a manuscript.
- The Editor assigns Reviewers to the manuscript.
- The Reviewers review the manuscript.
- The Editor drafts a decision to be sent to the Author.
Note: Review process for the submitted papers in this journal is double-blind peer review.
The submitted papers are subject to a peer review process. The purpose of peer review is to assists the Еditor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author it may also assist the author in improving the paper.
A manuscript goes through the peer review process - Double-blind peer-review. Double-blind peer review mean that reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers. There have to be at least two reviewers. The typical period of time allowed for reviews: 4 weeks. Note: Can be modified during the editorial process.
The choice of reviewers is at the editors' discretion. The reviewers must be knowledgeable about the subject area of the manuscript; they must not be from the authors' own institution and they should not have recent joint publications with any of the authors.
Reviewers must not have conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the funding sources for the research. If such conflicts exist, the reviewers must report them to the Editor without delay.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor without delay.
Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.
Authors submit manuscripts to Editorial office via the online system. The acknowledgment letter should be sent to the author to confirm the receipt of the manuscript. The Chief Editor first reviews manuscripts. Chief Editor is assisted by Section Editors (could also be Co- or Associated Editors). The Editor assigns a Section Editor to see the manuscript through the complete review process and return it with a recommendation or decision. The manuscript is checked to see if it meets the scope of the Journal and its formal requirements. If it is incorrect or unsuitable, the author should be informed and the manuscript filed (or returned if requested) – direct rejection. Manuscripts that are not suitable for publication in the Journal are rejected. A Rejection letter is sent to the author stating the reason for rejection. If the manuscript conforms to the aims and scope of the Journal and formally abides by the Instructions to Authors it is sent out for review. Depending on the type of paper, it could be accepted immediately for publication (invited Editorial, Book review etc) by the Chief Editor.
Check that the manuscript has been written and styled in accordance with the Journal style; that it carries an abstract (if applicable), keywords, correct reference system etc. and check that the correct blinding system has been used. If anything is missing ask the author to complete it before the manuscript is sent out for review.
The manuscript is sent out for review. The reviewer reads and evaluates the manuscript and eventually sends a review report to the Chief Editor. The time for review can be set to 2-6 weeks depending on the discipline (more time is usually given to papers in the humanities and social sciences). Make sure to provide the reviewer with clear instructions for the work, e.g. outlined in the form of a Review report or a number of questions to be considered.
Based on the reviewers’ comments the Chief Editor makes a decision to:
- Accept the manuscript without further revision
- Accept after revision
- Ask authors to resubmit
An acceptance letter is sent to the author and the final manuscript is forwarded to production. Sometimes, the authors are requested to revise in accordance with reviewers’ comments and submit the updated version or their manuscript to the Chief Editor. The time for review can be set to 2-8 weeks depending on the discipline and type of additional data, information or argument required. The authors are requested to make substantial revisions to their manuscripts and resubmit for a new evaluation. A rejection letter is sent to the author and the manuscript is archived. Reviewers might be informed about the decision.
After review, a manuscript goes to the Copy Editor who will correct the manuscript concerning the correct referencing system, confirmation with the journal style and layout. When Copy Editor finishes his/her work they send manuscripts to the Layout editor.
Layout Editor is responsible for structuring the original manuscript, including figures and tables, into an article, activating necessary links and preparing the manuscript in the various formats, in our case PDF and HTML format. When Layout Editor finishes his/her job they send manuscripts to Proof Editor.
Proof Editor confirms that the manuscript has gone through all the stages and can be published.
All of the reviewers of a paper act independently and they are not aware of each other’s identities. If the decisions of the two reviewers are not the same (accept/reject), the Editor may assign additional reviewers.
The Editorial team shall ensure reasonable quality control for the reviews. With respect to reviewers whose reviews are convincingly questioned by authors, special attention will be paid to ensure that the reviews are objective and high in academic standard. When there is any doubt with regard to the objectivity of the reviews or quality of the review, additional reviewers will be assigned.
Basic principles for reviewers
Peer reviewers should:
- only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner
- respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal
- not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others
- declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest
- not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations
- be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments
- acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner
- provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise
- recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct
Irene Hames on behalf of COPE CouncilMarch 2013, v.1
Guidelines for Reviewers
Before start with reviewing if there is any conflict of interest, please notify the Editor in Chief.
Each received article is forwarded to two independent reviewers – double blind review (reviewers do not know who is the author of the work, the author does not know who are the reviewers of his work). We insist on anonymity because we believe that this procedure will contribute to more independent, more critical and better examination papers.
Each reviewer has a period of 2-6 weeks to review the article. If you are unable to comply with deadlines, please inform without delay notify the Editor in Chief. The reviewer does not have the rights to the content of the paper, the other, or that data from work that benefits are reviewed for any purpose.
Reviewers have an obligation to care about ethical issues. If the paper is plagiarized or if the same title published in another journal or proceedings, please inform without delay notify the Editor in Chief.
At the beginning of the reviewer form, the reviewer states his name, title, and full name of the institution where he or she works, place and date of peer review. These data are confidential, remain with editorial boards and is not sent to the author of the work, in addition to the required corrections, suggestions and complaints if any.
Investigate the journal’s content
First thing you need is to watch the originality, relevance, presentation and the importance of the manuscript. Visit the journal homepage and look at the Instructions for Authors to see if the paper meets the submission criteria of the journal. This will help you in deciding whether the paper being reviewed is suitable or not.
In the review form that you get, write your opinion - report on the quantitative work.
How to writing your report:
Complete the all review questions in the report form. Write your report on the quantities work. Your report does not have to agree with the author. If you think make suggestions as to how the author can improve clarity, succinctness, and the overall quality of presentation.
Try to see first does the article fit the scope of the journal, does the article is original, does the research help to expand of further research in this subject area, would the paper be of interest to the readership of the journal. If on some of these question you find answer No, reconsider to recommend that author submit the paper in some related journal. Also, look does the article is in Standard English language, does the original research has IMRAD methodology, is there an abstract or brief summary of the work undertaken as well as a concluding section.
Make a recommendation
After you finished reading the paper and have assessed its quality, you need to make a recommendation to the editor regarding publication. You have to make next decision:
Accept the manuscript without further revision – if the manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
Accept after revision – if the manuscript will be ready for publication after light revisions.
Ask authors to resubmit – the article needs a lot of changes and need to submit the manuscript again.
Reject – if the paper is not manuscript for publication with this journal or if the revisions that would need to be undertaken.
When authors make revisions to their article in response to reviewer comments, they are asked to submit a list of changes and any comments for transmission to the reviewers.
If possible, the revised version is usually returned to the original reviewer who is then asked to affirm whether the revisions have been carried out satisfactorily.
What if you cannot make review?
If you cannot make review you should immediately notify the editorial office that you cannot do this job. If you are unable to complete your report on a paper in the agreed time-frame inform the editorial office as soon as possible so that the refereeing procedure is not delayed.
More about Review Guidelines you can find on the link http://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines_0.pdf
- All of a journal’s content should be subjected to Blind peer-review.
- The type of review is: Abstracted and Indexed, Refereed, Peer-reviewed.
- Peer-review is defined as obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers’ expert in the field.
- Judgments of the manuscripts should be objective.
- Reviewers should have no conflict of interest.
- Reviewed articles should be treated confidentially prior to their publication.
For more info, please Visit: Peer Review Statement