International Journal of
Architectural Engineering & Urban Planning
Sun, Sep 20, 2026
[Archive]
| Last update: 2021/01/7 |
IJAUP uses Double-blind peer review. The peer review process is conducted through an online manuscript submission for at least one round. After a manuscript is submitted to the online system, the system immediately notifies the editorial office.
A preliminary review of the article to check compliance with the journal format, the relevance of the subject of articles with the topics of the journal, and review of the initial scientific value will take a maximum of ten days. After passing an initial quality check by the editorial office, the manuscript is assigned to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers are asked to declare their competing interests, if any.
After receiving reviewers’ comments, the editorial team member makes a decision. Since reviewers do not agree with each other, occasionally, the final decision sent to the author may not exactly reflect recommendations by any of the reviewers.
Peer Review Process
The International Journal of Architectural Engineering & Urban Planning (IJAUP) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a fair, rigorous, timely, and confidential peer review process. Peer review is fundamental to ensuring the quality, originality, scientific integrity, and academic value of the research published by the Journal.
Double-Blind Peer Review
IJAUP operates a double-blind peer review system. During the review process, the identities of both the Authors and the Reviewers remain confidential. Authors should ensure that their manuscripts do not contain information that could reveal their identity.
Initial Editorial Assessment
All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the Editorial Office to determine whether they comply with the Journal’s submission requirements.
The initial assessment includes, but is not limited to:
Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to at least two independent expert Reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area.
Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, and subject knowledge. The Journal seeks to ensure an objective, impartial, and balanced evaluation of every submission.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts submitted to the Journal are treated as confidential documents.
Editors and Reviewers must not disclose, discuss, distribute, or use any unpublished material contained in a submitted manuscript except as necessary for the peer review process.
Competing Interests
Editors and Reviewers are required to declare any actual or potential competing interests that could influence their evaluation of a manuscript.
Individuals with significant competing interests will not participate in the review or editorial decision-making process for the relevant submission.
Review Criteria
Reviewers are invited to evaluate manuscripts on the basis of several scholarly criteria, including:
Editorial Decision
Following receipt of the reviewers’ reports, the assigned Editor evaluates all comments and recommendations before making an editorial recommendation.
The Editor-in-Chief has overall responsibility for the final publication decision.
Where reviewers provide differing recommendations, the Editor evaluates all available evidence and may seek additional expert review if considered necessary before reaching a final decision.
Editorial decisions may include:
Revision Process
Authors submitting revised manuscripts should respond to each reviewer comment and clearly indicate the revisions made.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original Reviewers or evaluated by the Editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.
Publication Ethics
The peer review process is conducted in accordance with the Journal’s Publication Ethics and editorial policies. Editors, Reviewers, and Authors are expected to adhere to the principles of fairness, confidentiality, impartiality, transparency, and academic integrity throughout the review process.
A preliminary review of the article to check compliance with the journal format, the relevance of the subject of articles with the topics of the journal, and review of the initial scientific value will take a maximum of ten days. After passing an initial quality check by the editorial office, the manuscript is assigned to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers are asked to declare their competing interests, if any.
After receiving reviewers’ comments, the editorial team member makes a decision. Since reviewers do not agree with each other, occasionally, the final decision sent to the author may not exactly reflect recommendations by any of the reviewers.
Peer Review Process
The International Journal of Architectural Engineering & Urban Planning (IJAUP) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a fair, rigorous, timely, and confidential peer review process. Peer review is fundamental to ensuring the quality, originality, scientific integrity, and academic value of the research published by the Journal.
Double-Blind Peer Review
IJAUP operates a double-blind peer review system. During the review process, the identities of both the Authors and the Reviewers remain confidential. Authors should ensure that their manuscripts do not contain information that could reveal their identity.
Initial Editorial Assessment
All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the Editorial Office to determine whether they comply with the Journal’s submission requirements.
The initial assessment includes, but is not limited to:
- compliance with the Journal’s formatting and submission requirements;
- relevance to the aims and scope of the Journal;
- originality and scholarly significance;
- overall scientific quality and suitability for peer review;
- compliance with the Journal’s ethical and editorial policies.
Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to at least two independent expert Reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area.
Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, and subject knowledge. The Journal seeks to ensure an objective, impartial, and balanced evaluation of every submission.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts submitted to the Journal are treated as confidential documents.
Editors and Reviewers must not disclose, discuss, distribute, or use any unpublished material contained in a submitted manuscript except as necessary for the peer review process.
Competing Interests
Editors and Reviewers are required to declare any actual or potential competing interests that could influence their evaluation of a manuscript.
Individuals with significant competing interests will not participate in the review or editorial decision-making process for the relevant submission.
Review Criteria
Reviewers are invited to evaluate manuscripts on the basis of several scholarly criteria, including:
- originality and contribution to the field;
- scientific quality and methodological soundness;
- significance and relevance of the research;
- clarity, organization, and quality of presentation;
- appropriateness of references and supporting evidence;
- compliance with applicable ethical standards.
Editorial Decision
Following receipt of the reviewers’ reports, the assigned Editor evaluates all comments and recommendations before making an editorial recommendation.
The Editor-in-Chief has overall responsibility for the final publication decision.
Where reviewers provide differing recommendations, the Editor evaluates all available evidence and may seek additional expert review if considered necessary before reaching a final decision.
Editorial decisions may include:
- Accept;
- Minor Revision;
- Major Revision;
- Reject.
Revision Process
Authors submitting revised manuscripts should respond to each reviewer comment and clearly indicate the revisions made.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original Reviewers or evaluated by the Editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.
Publication Ethics
The peer review process is conducted in accordance with the Journal’s Publication Ethics and editorial policies. Editors, Reviewers, and Authors are expected to adhere to the principles of fairness, confidentiality, impartiality, transparency, and academic integrity throughout the review process.
View: 7414 Time(s) |
Print: 1027 Time(s) |
Email: 0 Time(s) |
0 Comment(s)
