Reviewers

Guidelines for Reviewing Articles in the "Iranian Urban Design Studies"

The peer-review process for scientific articles is one of the most critical stages in ensuring the credibility and quality of academic content. Journals rely on reviewers’ evaluations to uphold the standards of published articles. This process not only ensures the originality and quality of manuscripts but also contributes to the advancement and development of knowledge. Peer review requires precision, fairness, and adherence to ethical principles. As such, scientific reviewing demands a deep understanding of professional ethics, expertise in the relevant field, and the ability to provide constructive feedback.

The purpose of this guide is to provide a comprehensive and precise framework for reviewers to conduct constructive, impartial, and effective evaluations while adhering to scientific principles and standards. We kindly ask reviewers to contribute to enhancing the academic quality of articles published in the "Iranian Urban Design Studies" by offering accurate, transparent, and constructive feedback. Your collaboration plays a significant role in advancing knowledge and science.

General Principles of Peer Review

  1. Confidentiality:
    All information regarding submitted manuscripts must be treated as confidential and used solely for the purposes of review. This ensures that the manuscript’s content remains protected until public disclosure.
  2. Impartiality:
    Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts without any personal, racial, religious, or political bias. Assessments should be based solely on scientific evidence and the manuscript’s content.
  3. Transparency:
    Review comments should be well-reasoned, clear, and supported by scientific evidence. Explaining the reasons for acceptance or rejection helps authors understand the strengths and weaknesses of their work.
  4. Professional Ethics:
    Reviewers must not use information from the manuscript for personal gain and should refrain from any form of personal or group-based bias during the review process.

Review Process

  1. Initial Assessment
    • Relevance to the Journal’s Scope: Reviewers should first determine whether the manuscript aligns with the journal’s mission and academic goals.
    • Manuscript Structure: Ensure that the manuscript adheres to the journal’s guidelines, including the inclusion of an abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
    • Writing Quality: Assess whether the manuscript is well-written and free from grammatical and structural errors.
  2. Content Evaluation
    • Originality and Innovation: Determine if the manuscript introduces new ideas or findings that contribute to existing knowledge.
    • Methodology: Evaluate whether the methods used are appropriate and scientifically sound, and whether the tools and techniques employed are valid.
    • Data Integrity: Assess the accuracy of data analysis and whether the sample size is adequate.
    • References: Check if the references are credible, up-to-date, and relevant to the manuscript’s subject matter.
  3. Providing Feedback
    • Constructive Feedback: Comments should be presented in a way that helps improve the manuscript’s quality. Focus on offering practical suggestions for improvement rather than merely highlighting weaknesses.
    • Anonymity: Reviewers should not include their name or identifying information in the feedback provided to authors, ensuring the anonymity of the review process.
    • Detailed Comments: Feedback should be comprehensive and precise, enabling the author to implement necessary changes effectively.
  4. Final Decision
    • Acceptance: The manuscript is suitable for publication without modifications or with minor revisions.
    • Revisions Required: The manuscript requires minor or major revisions. In this case, provide detailed suggestions for improvement.
    • Rejection: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication due to scientific or substantive reasons. Clearly explain the reasons for rejection to the author.

Common Reasons for Acceptance or Rejection

Reasons for Acceptance:

  • The manuscript aligns with the journal’s objectives.
  • It demonstrates originality and innovation.
  • The writing is excellent, and the concepts are clearly presented.
  • The methodology is appropriate and robust.
  • Data analysis is accurate, and conclusions are logical.
  • References are credible and up-to-date.

Reasons for Rejection:

  • Poor manuscript structure.
  • Inadequate or flawed methodology.
  • Use of unreliable references.
  • Presentation of invalid or unsupported results.
  • Lack of relevance to the journal’s scope.
  • Weak writing with numerous grammatical errors.

Additional Notes

  1. Timeliness:
    • Reviewers are kindly requested to submit their comments within the specified time frame to ensure a prompt and efficient review process.
    • If unable to review the manuscript, we would greatly appreciate it if reviewers could promptly inform the journal to allow reassignment to another reviewer.
  2. Professional Conduct:
    • We kindly ask reviewers to approach the review process without any personal bias or intent for settling personal scores.
    • Reviewers are requested to avoid using inappropriate language or making unfair judgments.
    • We ask reviewers to act with fairness and respect, treating authors as they would expect their own manuscripts to be reviewed.