PROCEDURE OF PAPER REVIEWING

Reviewers are required to comply with Publication ethics. The journal adheres to the principles and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviews constitute an essential element of research, providing not only an objective verification of the quality of presented results and outcomes but also indicating the potential for improvements in terms of applied methodology, presented interpretations, or technical aspects of a given study.

Principles of reviewing scientific articles in the Acta Scientiarum Polonorum. Architectura

1. The scientific journal Acta Scientiarum Polonorum. Architectura publishes original scientific papers corresponding to its profile. ASPA is a peer-reviewed journal.

2. During the initial editorial assessment, manuscripts are evaluated for originality, relevance to the journal’s scope, scientific quality, methodological soundness, and compliance with editorial guidelines. Papers that do not comply with the Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Architectura profile are rejected during the initial evaluation, and the Author is informed that the article is not allowed for further evaluation (desk decision).

3. Papers deemed suitable are then sent to a minimum of two independent expert Reviewers. The Reviewers are asked to complete their review within 2 weeks. 

The review is done using the double-blind review process, meaning that reviewers and authors do not know each other's identities. The Editorial Office ensures that all manuscripts are anonymized before being sent to reviewers. Reviewers do not receive any information that could reveal the identity of the authors, and authors do not receive information that could identify the reviewers.

The review is in writing (see the review form) and concludes with an explicit recommendation to revise, reject or accept the manuscript. 

Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the Editorial Board may issue one of the following decisions:
– The paper may be accepted in the present form
– The paper should be accepted after minor corrections
– The paper should be accepted after substantial corrections indicated
– The paper should be rejected.

4. The Authors receive information about the acceptance of the paper, revisions needed or its rejection and the content of the reviews, regardless of whether the reviews are positive or negative. 

If the reviewers suggest corrections to the Author, the Editorial Board shall forward the reviewers' comments to the Author.

If the article received two negative reviews, the Editorial Board informs the Authors, and the article is not published.

In the case of substantially divergent reviewers' recommendations, the Editors may seek the opinion of a third independent reviewer before making the final editorial decision.

5. The Reviewers are chosen from among recognized scientists and academics familiar with the subject field of the paper, who are not in a conflict of interest with the Authors.

6. The journals welcomes reviews written in an objective way. Reviewers are required to support their views with appropriate scientific arguments. Reviewers’ remarks should be specific, constructive and support the Authors in improving their manuscripts.

The reviewers are requested to consider the following problems, whether:

  • the paper represents scientific level and contains new ideas,
  • the research methods are correct and properly described,
  • paper presents the results of own research and must have the "methodology"
  • and "results" sections,
  • the title of the paper is appropriate and adequate to its content,
  • the analysis and synthesis of results are proper,
  • used statistical approaches are correct and sufficient,
  • conclusions are proper and resulted from research presented in the paper,
  • language correctness of paper, sufficiency of figures and tables,
  • whether the summary contains the description of methods applied and drawing conclusions,
  • bibliography sufficiency,
  • whether the paper had been already published in the same or similar form.

The content of the review report is a confidential document. 

7. The identities of individual reviewers remain confidential. To acknowledge their contribution, the journal publishes an annual list of reviewers who cooperated with the journal during the previous year. LIST OF REVIEWERS | Acta Scientiarum Polonorum. Architectura .

The Editors monitor the quality and timeliness of reviewers' reports and maintain a database of qualified reviewers.

8. Reviewers must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. The content of the manuscript may not be disclosed or used for personal research prior to publication without the permission of the Editors.

9.  All submitted manuscripts are checked for plagiarism using professional similarity detection software  Similarity Check (iThenticate, Crossref). Manuscripts with excessive similarity or evidence of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or data manipulation are rejected. Cases of unethical behavior are handled in accordance with COPE guidelines.

10. The journal has a policy regarding the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the process of preparing and publishing scientific articles. Authors, reviewers, and editors are required to comply with the applicable rules regarding the use of AI tools, in accordance with the journal’s policy and the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The use of AI tools should be transparent and appropriately disclosed, in accordance with the requirements set forth in the guidelines for authors and the journal’s AI policy. See also AI Policy