We deeply appreciate the invaluable contribution made by academic professionals who generously devote their time to peer-reviewing submissions for the International Journal for Housing Science and Its Applications. Peer review is the foundation of rigorous academic publishing and ensures that the highest standards of research integrity are maintained.
Peer Review Process and Editorial Workflow
The peer review process plays a critical role in the quality control of all manuscripts submitted to the International Journal for Housing Science and Its Applications. Every manuscript undergoes a meticulous evaluation by field experts to ensure that the published research meets the journal’s rigorous standards.
Once a manuscript is submitted, it initially undergoes a technical pre-screening by the journal’s Managing Editor to ensure it meets basic formatting and submission guidelines. Following this, the manuscript is forwarded to a qualified academic editor who conducts a preliminary assessment. The editor has several options at this stage: they can proceed with the peer review, recommend revisions prior to peer review, or outright reject the manuscript if it does not meet the journal’s standards.
Should the manuscript proceed to the peer review stage, the editorial office will assign independent expert reviewers who conduct a detailed and impartial review. At least two review reports are gathered for each manuscript, and based on these evaluations, authors are often asked to revise their work. In cases where major revisions are requested, the paper may undergo multiple rounds of review before a final decision is reached. The decision to accept or reject the manuscript is made by the academic editor, who may be the Editor-in-Chief, an Editorial Board Member, or a Guest Editor, depending on the circumstances. Accepted manuscripts then undergo copy-editing and proofreading before final publication.
Reviewer Qualifications and Ethical Standards
Reviewers play an essential role in safeguarding the quality and credibility of scientific publications. As such, it is important that reviewers possess the necessary qualifications, experience, and integrity. Reviewers for the International Journal for Housing Science and Its Applications must adhere to the COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers to maintain transparency, accountability, and ethical rigor.
Ideal reviewer qualifications include:
- No conflicts of interest with any of the authors.
- Must not be affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors.
- No co-authored publications with the authors within the last five years.
- Possession of a Ph.D. in a relevant field.
- Proven expertise and a strong publication record in the subject area of the manuscript.
- Official affiliation with a recognized academic institution.
Reviewers are expected to conduct thorough and unbiased evaluations, offer constructive feedback, and ensure that the manuscript meets the highest scientific and ethical standards. They should ensure that their reviews are professional, objective, and completed in a timely manner.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers who accept an invitation to evaluate a manuscript commit to the following responsibilities:
- Assess the scientific quality, novelty, and significance of the work.
- Provide detailed, constructive, and well-reasoned feedback that will help authors improve their manuscript.
- Adhere to the journal’s ethical guidelines and maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
- Complete the review within the specified timeframe to avoid unnecessary delays in the publication process.
Their expert assessments not only contribute to the overall quality of the journal but also to the integrity of the scientific record.
Reviewer Recognition and Benefits
While reviewing manuscripts is often considered an unrewarded academic task, it is essential for maintaining the integrity of scholarly research. At International Journal for Housing Science and Its Applications, we aim to recognize the efforts of our reviewers.
Reviewers are encouraged to create profiles on platforms like the Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service (formerly Publons), where they can document their reviewing activity. Such profiles can also be integrated with ORCID, allowing reviewers to receive credit for their contributions and helping to build a publicly visible record of their peer-review work. These tools provide a tangible acknowledgment of the vital role that reviewers play in the academic publishing process.
Guidelines for Reviewers
Invitation to Review a Manuscript
The peer-review process at the International Journal for Housing Science and Its Applications is an essential part of maintaining the academic integrity and quality of the journal. Each submitted manuscript undergoes rigorous evaluation by at least two expert reviewers. These reviewers can either be volunteers who have signed up to participate or those specifically recommended by the academic editor following an initial assessment of the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to evaluate the overall quality of the manuscript and provide a well-considered recommendation to the editorial team on whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected.
We ask invited reviewers to:
- Accept or decline invitations promptly: Reviewers should decide based on the title and abstract, ensuring they are capable of providing an objective and thorough review.
- Suggest alternative reviewers: If a reviewer must decline, they are encouraged to recommend other qualified reviewers.
- Request an extension: Should additional time be required to complete the review, reviewers must notify the editorial office as soon as possible to avoid unnecessary delays.
Potential Conflicts of Interest
It is important for reviewers to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may arise when reviewing a manuscript. Conflicts of interest can impact the objectivity of the review process, so transparency is key. Reviewers are encouraged to notify the editorial office if they are uncertain whether a potential conflict exists. Examples of conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to:
- Working at the same institution as one of the authors.
- Having been a co-author, collaborator, or joint grant holder with any of the authors within the past five years.
- Possessing a personal or professional rivalry with the authors.
- Standing to gain or lose financially based on the outcome of the manuscript’s publication.
- Having any non-financial conflicts, such as ideological, political, or religious biases.
If any of these conditions apply or if there is a perceived bias, reviewers are required to disclose these conflicts to maintain the integrity of the review process.
Confidentiality Agreement
The International Journal for Housing Science and Its Applications employs either a single- or double-blind peer review system to ensure impartiality. Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality and must not share the manuscript or its details with anyone, including colleagues or other professionals, unless prior permission is obtained from the editorial office. Moreover, reviewers are advised to be cautious in not disclosing their identity within the review report, especially if submitting comments via Word or PDF files. This includes removing identifying information from the metadata of the submitted reports. Should a reviewer be unable to complete the review themselves and wishes to delegate it to a colleague, prior approval from the editorial office is required.
Preparing the Review Report
The review report is a vital part of the peer-review process and must be prepared in clear and concise English. A comprehensive review report includes critical evaluations of the manuscript’s methodology, data, and overall presentation. It is expected that reviewers carefully read the entire manuscript, including supplementary materials, and provide comments that are both general and specific to help authors improve their work. Constructive criticism is highly valued, and reviewers should aim to explain their points in a manner that allows authors to address them clearly.
In preparing the review report, reviewers should:
- Provide an overall assessment of the manuscript, highlighting the strengths and key contributions of the research.
- Offer general feedback about the research, including whether the hypotheses, methods, and conclusions are sound.
- Give specific feedback, citing exact lines, tables, or figures that may need correction or clarification.
- Avoid suggesting citations that are not essential to improving the manuscript or increasing its scientific quality. Excessive self-citation or recommending citations to increase the journal’s impact factor is discouraged.
Additionally, it is important to maintain professionalism and avoid derogatory remarks. Reviewers are responsible for ensuring the content of their report, and the use of AI tools to assist in drafting or editing the review report is strictly prohibited. Any failure to meet these standards may result in the review being rejected or requiring revision.
Ethical and Publication Standards
At the International Journal for Housing Science and Its Applications, we adhere to high standards of publication ethics. Manuscripts must be original works that have not been published elsewhere, even in part. Any form of plagiarism, data fabrication, or scientific misconduct is unacceptable. Reviewers are urged to raise concerns if they suspect any form of unethical behavior in the manuscript under review. All studies reported in the manuscript should meet ethical research standards, and reviewers should assess the ethics statements and data availability sections to ensure they are adequate.
Final Recommendation
After completing their review, reviewers are required to make an overall recommendation for the manuscript’s next stage of processing. Possible recommendations include:
- Accept as is: The manuscript is ready for publication without any changes.
- Accept with minor revisions: The manuscript requires some adjustments but is acceptable after minor changes. Authors are typically given 15 days to make these revisions.
- Reconsider after major revisions: The manuscript needs significant changes before it can be considered for publication. Authors must address the points raised and provide a detailed response. Reviewers may be asked to review the revised manuscript.
- Reject: The manuscript has serious flaws and cannot be accepted for publication. In such cases, it is important for reviewers to provide a clear rationale for their decision.
It is important to note that reviewers’ recommendations are confidential and are only visible to the journal’s editors, who make the final decision on the manuscript’s publication status. Reviewers are encouraged to ensure that their recommendations are well justified and supported by the content of their review report.