Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Jambura Journal of Architecture (JJoA) applies a rigorous peer-review process to maintain the quality, validity, originality, and academic integrity of published articles.

All research manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an initial editorial assessment. Manuscripts that pass this assessment proceed to independent peer review.

The journal applies a *single-anonymized peer-review model*, in which reviewers know the identities of the authors, while reviewer identities are not disclosed to the authors.

Each manuscript proceeding to peer review is evaluated by *at least one independent reviewer* with expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript. Additional reviewers may be appointed when further expertise or assessment is needed.

Peer Review Workflow

1. Submission and Administrative Check

The editorial office checks the submitted manuscript for completeness, compliance with the journal’s author guidelines and template, required declarations, and supporting information. Manuscripts that do not meet essential submission requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before further evaluation.

2. Desk Review and Initial Editorial Evaluation

The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor evaluates the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s focus and scope, originality, academic quality, methodological appropriateness, research integrity, and overall suitability for peer review.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope, have substantial academic or methodological deficiencies, fail to meet essential submission requirements, or raise significant ethical concerns may be declined without external peer review.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial evaluation are assigned to at least one independent reviewer with relevant academic or professional expertise.

Reviewers must be free from conflicts of interest that could compromise the objectivity of their assessment. Additional reviewers may be invited when the manuscript requires expertise across multiple areas or when further assessment is necessary.

4. Single-Anonymized Peer Review

Reviewers receive the manuscript with the authors’ names and affiliations. Reviewer identities remain confidential and are not disclosed to the authors.

Communications between authors and reviewers are managed through the editorial office or the journal’s submission system.

5. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, relevance, theoretical or conceptual foundation, research design, methodology, data analysis, interpretation of results, discussion, clarity of presentation, validity of conclusions, and ethical compliance.

The assessment also considers the manuscript’s contribution to the journal’s focus and scope, covering architectural theory, architectural design, architectural science, the sustainable built environment, architectural history, material technology, and building structures.

Evaluation criteria are applied as appropriate to the manuscript’s subject, approach, and type of contribution.

6. Editorial Decision

After considering the reviewer’s report or reviewers’ reports and the editor’s own assessment, the responsible editor communicates a decision to the corresponding author.

Possible decisions include:

- *Accept Submission:* The manuscript is accepted without further substantive revision.
- *Revisions Required / Minor Revision:* The manuscript requires limited revisions that are normally assessed by the editor.
- *Resubmit for Review / Major Revision:* The manuscript requires substantial revisions and further evaluation before acceptance can be considered.
- *Decline Submission:* The manuscript is not accepted for publication.

A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance.

7. Author Revision

Authors must address the reviewers’ and editor’s comments carefully and submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response explaining the changes made.

When authors disagree with a comment or cannot implement a requested change, they should provide a clear academic justification.

8. Re-Evaluation

The revised manuscript and the authors’ response are assessed by the responsible editor. The manuscript may be returned to the original reviewer or assigned to additional reviewers, particularly when substantial revisions or further expertise are required.

Additional rounds of revision may be requested before a final decision is reached.

9. Final Decision

The responsible editor makes the final decision on acceptance or rejection based on the manuscript’s academic quality, peer-review reports, adequacy of revisions, ethical compliance, and suitability for the journal.

Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not independently determine acceptance or rejection.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to consider the following aspects, as appropriate to the manuscript:

- Relevance to the journal’s focus and scope;
- Originality and significance of the contribution;
- Clarity of the research problem and objectives;
- Adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework;
- Appropriateness and rigor of the research or design methodology;
- Adequacy of the evidence and reliability of the analysis;
- Quality of the results and their interpretation;
- Depth and relevance of the discussion;
- Consistency between objectives, results, and conclusions;
- Contribution to architectural knowledge or professional practice;
- Quality and relevance of scholarly references;
- Compliance with research and publication ethics; and
- Overall clarity, organization, and academic presentation.

 Review Timeline

The journal seeks to conduct peer review efficiently while maintaining appropriate academic standards. Reviewers are normally requested to complete an individual review assignment within approximately four weeks of accepting the invitation.

The overall time required to reach an editorial decision may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the number of revision rounds, and the responsiveness of the authors.

The four-week period is a target for an individual review assignment and does not represent a guarantee of an editorial decision, acceptance, or publication within that period.

Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any relationship or interest that could reasonably affect their impartiality. They should decline an invitation when a financial, professional, institutional, collaborative, personal, or other conflict could compromise an independent assessment.

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively and provide constructive comments supported by clear academic reasoning.

Reviewers must not request unnecessary citations for the purpose of increasing their own citation counts or those of particular authors, journals, or institutions.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished information from a manuscript without appropriate authorization.

Reviewers must not involve other individuals in the assessment without prior permission from the responsible editor.

Reviewer identities are kept confidential from authors under the journal’s single-anonymized peer-review model. Reviewer reports and related communications are handled as confidential editorial records and shared only as necessary for the editorial process.

Submissions from Editors and Editorial Board Members

Editors and Editorial Board members may submit manuscripts to JJoA. However, they must not participate in the editorial assessment, reviewer selection, management of peer review, or publication decision concerning their own manuscripts.

Such submissions must be assigned to another qualified editor who has no relevant conflict of interest and can manage the manuscript independently.

These manuscripts are subject to the same submission requirements, review criteria, and single-anonymized peer-review procedures as other submissions, including assessment by at least one independent reviewer.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, relevance to the journal’s focus and scope, research integrity, peer-review findings, and compliance with the journal’s editorial and ethical policies.

Commercial considerations, personal relationships, and the authors’ editorial positions must not influence publication decisions.