Editorial Process

Overview

The International Journal for Housing Science and Its Applications is committed to maintaining a robust and transparent editorial process that upholds the highest standards of academic quality. Our peer review system, overseen by experts in the field, is designed to ensure that all published content meets the rigorous standards of scholarly excellence.

We believe that peer review should not only be thorough and fair but also efficient for all parties involved, including authors, reviewers, and editors. Our goal is to create a collaborative and transparent process that enhances the quality of each manuscript while ensuring a timely review cycle.

Peer Review Procedure

The journal follows a single-blind peer review process, where the identity of the reviewers is kept confidential while the authors’ identities are known. This assessment involves at least two independent reviewers for each manuscript. Following their evaluations, the final decision—whether to accept or reject the paper—rests with the Editor-in-Chief or a designated academic editor.

The Editor-in-Chief has a pivotal role in ensuring the academic integrity of the journal. Their responsibilities include making the final decisions on the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts, approving Special Issues, and appointing new Editorial Board members and external editors. By overseeing the entire publication process, the Editor-in-Chief guarantees that the journal continues to meet high academic and ethical standards.

Pre-Check Stage

Before manuscripts are sent for formal peer review, they undergo a two-step pre-check process to ensure quality and adherence to submission guidelines. This stage is essential for filtering out submissions that may not align with the journal’s standards or scope, thereby streamlining the peer review process.

Technical Pre-Check: Once a manuscript is submitted, the Managing Editor carries out a technical evaluation. This check focuses on:
- Ensuring the manuscript aligns with the journal’s scope and the focus of any Special Issue (if applicable).
- Verifying adherence to ethical research standards and the guidelines for scientific rigor.
- Confirming that the manuscript is prepared according to the journal’s submission and formatting requirements.
Editorial Pre-Check: Following the technical evaluation, an academic editor (which may be the Editor-in-Chief for regular submissions or a Guest Editor for Special Issue submissions) conducts an editorial pre-check. This involves assessing the overall scientific quality of the manuscript, the appropriateness of the methodology, the relevance of the references, and the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s scope. At this stage, the academic editor may:
- Reject the manuscript if it is deemed unsuitable.
- Request revisions before proceeding to peer review.
- Recommend suitable reviewers and move the manuscript forward to the formal peer review process.

In cases where there is a conflict of interest, such as when an Editor-in-Chief, Guest Editor, or Editorial Board member submits a manuscript to the journal, they are excluded from accessing the review process for their own work. In these instances, another Editorial Board member takes responsibility for overseeing the peer review and making final decisions. This ensures the process remains unbiased and free from conflicts of interest.

Reviewer Selection and Final Decision

Once the manuscript passes the pre-check stage, the journal assigns expert reviewers to evaluate its content. These reviewers assess the manuscript based on its scientific merit, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s field. Upon completion of the review process, the Editor-in-Chief (or designated editor) reviews the feedback and makes the final decision, which could result in:

Acceptance of the manuscript with or without minor revisions.
Revisions Required, allowing the authors to address specific comments before a final decision is made.
Rejection if the manuscript does not meet the required standards.

Peer Review Process Overview

At the International Journal for Housing Science and Its Applications, the peer review process is central to maintaining the integrity and quality of the research we publish. Our goal is to ensure a fair, transparent, and efficient review process that benefits authors, reviewers, and editors alike.

From the moment a manuscript is submitted until the final decision is made, a dedicated staff member oversees the review process. This individual acts as the primary point of contact, facilitating communication between authors, academic editors, and reviewers. By maintaining consistent oversight, we aim to streamline the process and provide timely updates to all parties involved.

Our journal operates under a single-blind peer review model. This means that while the reviewers know the identity of the author, the author does not know the identity of the reviewers. This system allows reviewers to evaluate the manuscript without the pressure of being identified, while maintaining accountability on the author’s side. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers to ensure a balanced and rigorous review.

Selection of Reviewers

The selection of reviewers is a collaborative process. During the pre-check stage, the academic editor has the opportunity to suggest suitable reviewers based on their expertise and the manuscript’s topic. Additionally, our editorial team identify experts with relevant experience and knowledge in the field.

Authors are also invited to participate in this process by recommending potential reviewers who have the appropriate expertise to evaluate their manuscript. This allows authors to suggest individuals they believe can provide valuable feedback. However, the final decision on the choice of reviewers remains with the editorial team, which ensures that all reviewers are impartial and free from any conflicts of interest.

During the manuscript submission, authors may also request the exclusion of specific individuals from the review process. These requests will be honored as long as they do not compromise the integrity of the peer review or hinder the objective evaluation of the manuscript.

Reviewer Criteria

All reviewers selected for our journal must meet a stringent set of criteria to guarantee a high standard of review quality. Specifically, reviewers must:

Have no conflicts of interest with the authors, including personal, financial, or professional relationships.
Not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors.
Not have co-authored any publications with the authors within the past three years.
Hold a PhD or equivalent degree in a relevant field.
Possess a strong track record of research publications in the subject area of the manuscript.
Be established scholars with recognized academic affiliations.

This rigorous selection ensures that the reviewers have the expertise to offer constructive and informed critiques of the work they are evaluating.

Reviewer Responsibilities

When reviewers agree to assess a manuscript, they commit to providing a thorough and professional evaluation. They are expected to:

Have the appropriate subject-matter expertise to critically assess the quality, originality, and relevance of the manuscript.
Submit well-structured and detailed review reports that offer constructive feedback to the authors and editors.
Conduct their reviews with professionalism and adhere to high ethical standards.

Reviewers are generally given 30–45 days to complete their assessment, though extensions may be granted upon request. In cases where authors submit revised manuscripts, reviewers are asked to submit their follow-up evaluations within 15 days, though this timeline can also be adjusted if necessary.

Communication and Support

To assist the smooth progression of each manuscript, the editorial team handles all communication between reviewers, authors, and academic editors. This ensures that the process is well-coordinated and that any issues or delays are addressed promptly. Academic editors have access to the manuscript’s status and can review the identities of the reviewers at any point, allowing them to monitor progress and engage with the review process as needed.

Manuscript Revision Process

When a manuscript is submitted to the International Journal for Housing Science and Its Applications, the editorial team ensures that the peer review process is thorough and fair. If reviewers recommend either minor or major revisions, authors are provided with specific feedback to improve their work. At this point, the manuscript is returned to the author, along with detailed comments from the reviewers and academic editors. Authors are expected to revise their work based on these recommendations.

In cases where reviewers offer conflicting assessments, or if any reviewer suggests rejecting the manuscript, the academic editor plays a crucial role. Before any revision requests are communicated to the author, the academic editor carefully reviews all reports and provides additional feedback. If necessary, the editor may seek further evaluations from additional reviewers to resolve any disputes or ensure a balanced assessment.

Once the authors submit the revised manuscript, the decision to send it back to reviewers is determined by the specific nature of the revisions. If significant changes were requested, particularly when a reviewer had recommended rejection or major revisions, the revised manuscript will be re-evaluated by the original reviewers. In some cases, minor revisions may not require further review. All reviewers involved in the process are granted access to the latest version of the manuscript via the Editorial Manager system.

Editorial Decision Making

After peer review, the academic editor, in collaboration with the editorial team, is responsible for making final decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript. The journal requires a minimum of two peer review reports before any decision is made. The academic editor carefully considers the reviewers’ feedback, the author’s responses to reviewer comments, and the overall scientific merit of the work before making a decision.

The possible editorial decisions include:

Acceptance in its current form: The manuscript is ready for publication.
Acceptance with minor revisions: Minor improvements are needed before publication.
Major revision requested: Substantial changes are required, and the revised manuscript will undergo further review.
Rejection: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.
Request for additional reviewers: The editor may seek further expert opinion if the manuscript requires more detailed evaluation.

If a reviewer recommends rejecting the manuscript but the academic editor believes it should be accepted, the editor may overrule the recommendation, but must provide a detailed justification. In such cases, a double decision process is triggered, where an additional editorial board member or the Editor-in-Chief is consulted to validate the final decision. This ensures transparency and fairness.

Editors are also responsible for disclosing any potential conflicts of interest to the Editorial Office that might affect the decision-making process. This includes personal or professional relationships with the authors that could bias the outcome.

Handling Appeals from Authors

In the event of a rejection, authors have the right to appeal the decision. To do so, they must submit a detailed appeal letter to the Editorial Office. This letter should include specific responses to the reviewers’ and editors’ comments, using a structured appeal form. Appeals must be submitted within three months of the rejection decision.

The appeal process involves re-evaluating the manuscript and the reviewer reports. An Editorial Board member who was not previously involved with the manuscript will be tasked with providing an independent recommendation. This recommendation could result in acceptance, further review, or upholding the original rejection. Once the Editor-in-Chief reviews this decision, it becomes final, and no further appeals will be considered.

Production Process

Once a manuscript is accepted for publication, it enters the production stage. The in-house production team handles all aspects of preparing the manuscript for publication. This includes language editing, copyediting, and conversion into XML for online publication.

Language editing is carried out by professional editors, ensuring that the manuscript meets high standards of clarity and readability. In cases where extensive editing is required, the journal offers an optional English language editing service at an additional cost, but only with the author’s prior consent. Authors are also encouraged to consult external English editing services or seek assistance from a native English-speaking colleague for final language refinements, which is often the preferred option.

Publication Ethics and Guidelines

The International Journal for Housing Science and Its Applications is deeply committed to maintaining the highest standards of ethical behavior in all stages of the publication process. As a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), we strictly adhere to its Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. These principles provide a framework for addressing any ethical concerns involving authors, reviewers, or editors, ensuring the integrity and credibility of the research we publish.

Addressing Unethical Conduct

We take allegations of unethical behavior seriously. Any concerns raised by readers, reviewers, or editors—whether related to plagiarism, data fabrication, improper authorship practices, or conflict of interest—will be thoroughly investigated. Our procedures align with COPE’s recommended guidelines, which ensure a fair and transparent process. If necessary, we may consult external bodies, such as an institutional ethics committee, to resolve complex disputes, including issues related to data ownership or research misconduct.

When disputes arise over the validity of published research, the Editorial Board plays a critical role in evaluating the concerns. In cases where an agreement cannot be reached, external adjudication, such as through institutional review boards, may be sought. Authors must promptly address any substantiated allegations brought against their work.

Handling Authorship Disputes

We follow the detailed COPE Guidelines to manage authorship disputes, focusing particularly on avoiding ghost or gift authorship. If all authors agree on changes in authorship after publication, the matter is resolved via a formal correction. When disagreements occur, we require institutions to provide an authoritative statement about who qualifies for authorship, as per the COPE guideline How to Spot Authorship Problems.

Publishing Standards and Compliance

Our journal abides by a range of established standards to promote the integrity and transparency of published research. We encourage authors to familiarize themselves with these standards, as they play a vital role in the manuscript review process.

Some of the key standards and guidelines we follow include:

ICMJE Recommendations: These are internationally recognized guidelines for medical journal editors that define ethical considerations in the conduct and reporting of research.
CONSORT Statement: Authors conducting randomized controlled trials are encouraged to ensure compliance with the CONSORT checklist and flow diagram, which helps enhance transparency and replicability in trial reporting.
TOP Guidelines: As part of our commitment to openness, we strive to meet Levels 1 and 2 of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines, which focus on improving research transparency across the scientific community.
FAIR Principles: We encourage authors to adopt the FAIR Principles—ensuring that data is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable—which enhances the longevity and reproducibility of their research.
PRISMA: For systematic reviews and meta-analyses, we recommend adherence to the PRISMA guidelines, which support clear and structured reporting.
ARRIVE Guidelines: Researchers submitting papers involving in vivo experiments should ensure their compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines, which standardize reporting practices in animal research.
iThenticate: We use iThenticate, an industry-standard plagiarism detection tool, at multiple stages in the editorial process, including at the initial submission stage and before final acceptance.

Compliance with these standards is considered when making final publication decisions. Authors should clearly explain any deviations from these guidelines in their submission.

Editorial Independence

The editorial process at the International Journal for Housing Science and Its Applications is designed to ensure impartiality and objectivity. All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer review process, and decisions regarding acceptance or rejection are made solely by independent academic editors. Our editorial team, including Editors-in-Chief and members of the Editorial Board, are not involved in decisions regarding their own submissions to prevent conflicts of interest.

Decisions made by academic editors are based on:

The suitability of the reviewers selected for the manuscript;
The quality of the reviewer feedback and the author’s response to it;
The overall scientific merit of the paper, including its originality and contribution to the field.

Where disputes arise, particularly between reviewers and editors, an additional round of assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or an Editorial Board member may be requested.