Peer Review Statement

Type of Peer Review

Double-Blind Peer Review

The Journal of Salutogenic Architecture employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process for all submitted manuscripts. In this system:

  • Authors do not know the identity of reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identity of authors.

  • This ensures evaluations are based solely on scholarly merit, minimising potential bias related to the author’s name, institution, nationality, gender, or previous work.

  • The goal is to uphold fairness, impartiality, and scientific integrity in every evaluation.

Peer Review Process

The journal follows a structured process designed to assist the editorial team in making well-informed decisions while helping authors improve their manuscripts through constructive feedback.

1. Submission

Authors submit manuscripts via the journal’s online submission platform, ensuring that all identifying details are removed from the main document.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscript for:

  • Suitability within the journal’s aims and scope.

  • Compliance with author guidelines and formatting requirements.

  • Adherence to anonymisation standards for double-blind review.

If deemed appropriate, the Editor-in-Chief assigns a Section Editor through the Section Coordinators to oversee the review process.

3. Reviewer Selection

  • The Section Editor selects two or more independent reviewers based on subject expertise and research relevance.

  • Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting the assignment.

  • If a conflict is identified, a different reviewer will be appointed to maintain the process’s integrity.

4. Review Evaluation

  • Reviewers assess the manuscript for originality, significance, methodology, clarity, ethical compliance, and completeness of references.

  • They provide a structured evaluation report with comments for both the authors and the editorial team.

  • Reviewers submit one of the following recommendations:

    • Accept without revision

    • Accept after minor revision

    • Request major revision (may require re-review)

    • Reject

5. Decision Making

The Section Editor compiles reviewer feedback and provides a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision.

6. Communication with Authors

Authors are notified of the decision with:

  • Reviewer comments (anonymised)

  • Required changes, if any

  • Deadlines for revision

7. Revision and Resubmission

  • Authors typically have up to 8 weeks to revise.

  • A rebuttal letter addressing each reviewer comment is required.

  • Revised manuscripts may undergo additional rounds of peer review, depending on the extent of changes.

8. Copy Editing and Layout

If accepted:

  • A Copy Editor ensures adherence to referencing style and journal guidelines.

  • A Layout Editor prepares the manuscript in both PDF and HTML formats, integrating all necessary links.

9. Proofreading

The Proof Editor reviews the final formatted article before publication.

Review Timeline

  • The standard review process takes approximately 8 weeks from reviewer assignment to decision.

  • Timely completion of reviews is encouraged to maintain efficient publication schedules.

Conflict Resolution

If reviewer recommendations diverge significantly:

  • The Editor may assign an additional reviewer.

  • The editorial team is committed to upholding objectivity and will intervene if impartiality is in question.

Confidentiality

  • All submitted manuscripts and peer reviews are confidential.

  • Reviewers and editors may not share or discuss the manuscript except with those directly involved in the process and authorised by the Editor-in-Chief.

Ethical Standards

The Journal of Salutogenic Architecture follows the ethical principles of:

  • COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)

  • DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)

  • OASPA (Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association)

Unethical practices—such as plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, or undisclosed conflicts of interest—are investigated and addressed according to COPE guidelines.

Right to Appeal

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal written request to the Editor-in-Chief, including a detailed justification. Appeals will be considered by the editorial board, and additional reviewers may be consulted.

Benefits of Double-Blind Peer Review

  • Minimises bias based on author identity or affiliation.

  • Encourages submissions from diverse global researchers, including early-career scholars.

  • Builds trust in the publication process through fairness and impartiality.