Peer Review Process
Journal of Architecture and Spatial Planning (JASP) applies a double-blind peer-review process to maintain the academic quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of the articles published in the journal.
The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. Manuscripts are evaluated by independent reviewers with appropriate expertise relevant to the subject of the submitted manuscript.
1. Initial Editorial Assessment
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team before being sent for peer review.
The assessment considers the manuscript's relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope, originality, academic contribution, general quality, methodological appropriateness, and compliance with the Author Guidelines.
The editorial team may decline manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope or do not meet the journal's basic academic and editorial requirements.
Passing the initial assessment does not guarantee acceptance or publication.
2. Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant academic expertise.
Reviewers are selected based on their research experience, academic qualifications, and relevance to the subject of the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to be independent of the authors and free from conflicts of interest.
3. Double-Blind Peer Review
JASP uses a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential.
Reviewers do not receive information identifying the authors, and authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities.
Authors are therefore encouraged to ensure that the manuscript prepared for review does not unnecessarily reveal their identity or institutional affiliation.
4. Review Criteria
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on their academic quality and contribution to the field. The assessment may include:
- originality and contribution to knowledge;
- relevance to the journal's scope;
- clarity of research objectives and questions;
- appropriateness and rigor of the research methods;
- quality of data, analysis, or design-based investigation;
- clarity and relevance of results and discussion;
- validity of conclusions; and
- quality and relevance of references.
The review process is intended to provide constructive academic feedback to strengthen the manuscript's quality and clarity.
5. Reviewer Recommendation and Editorial Decision
Reviewers provide recommendations to the editorial team, which may include:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
Reviewer recommendations are considered by the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor in making the final editorial decision. Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may request further clarification, invite an additional reviewer, or make a decision based on the overall academic assessment of the manuscript.
6. Revision and Resubmission
When revisions are requested, authors should carefully address the comments from reviewers and editors. Authors may be asked to provide a response explaining how the substantive comments have been addressed.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when considered necessary.
The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript rests with the editorial team.
7. Confidentiality and Reviewer Ethics
All manuscripts and reviewer reports are treated as confidential.
Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and respectful assessments and to disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.
Reviewers must not disclose, reproduce, distribute, or use unpublished information obtained during the review process for personal or professional purposes.
JASP is committed to maintaining a fair, independent, transparent, and academically rigorous peer-review process.
