Reviewer Guide

Roles and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are responsible for evaluating manuscripts based on their field of expertise and providing constructive, objective, and professional feedback. Reviewers are expected to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, suggest improvements, and assess its relevance, originality, and scientific contribution to the field of architecture and the built environment.

Before Conducting the Review

1. Expertise Relevance

Ensure that the assigned manuscript aligns with your area of expertise. If it does not, please inform the editor promptly and, if possible, recommend an alternative reviewer.

2. Availability

The review process is expected to be completed within 2–4 weeks. If additional time is required, please notify the editor as soon as possible.

3. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest (academic, institutional, or personal) before accepting the review assignment.

Review Process and Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate the manuscript based on the following aspects:

1. Title and Abstract

  • Does the title clearly represent the content of the manuscript?
  • Does the abstract accurately summarize the objectives, methods, and key findings?

2. Introduction

  • Are the research background and problem statements clearly presented?
  • Is the literature review relevant and up-to-date?
  • Are the research objectives clearly defined?

3. Scope Relevance

  • Is the manuscript aligned with the journal’s focus on architecture and built environment studies?
  • Is it relevant to topics such as architectural design, building materials, construction technology, housing, or urban and regional analysis?

4. Originality and Scientific Contribution

  • Does the manuscript demonstrate novelty or innovation?
  • Does it contribute significantly to architectural knowledge or practice?
  • Ensure there are no strong indications of plagiarism.

5. Research Methodology

  • Is the methodology clearly explained and systematically structured?
  • Is the research design appropriate for the objectives?
  • Can the study be replicated based on the provided information?
  • Is there any methodological or design innovation?

6. Results and Discussion

  • Are the results presented clearly and logically?
  • Is the analysis conducted appropriately?
  • Does the discussion connect findings with existing literature?

7. Conclusion

  • Are the conclusions supported by the findings?
  • Do they provide theoretical or practical implications?
  • Are suggestions for future research included?

8. Tables and Figures

  • Are tables, drawings, or figures clear and relevant?
  • Do they effectively support the content of the manuscript?

9. Writing Quality

  • Is the manuscript written clearly and systematically?
  • Is proper academic language used?
  • Are references relevant, recent, and consistently formatted?

Additional Evaluation Aspects

Sustainability and Innovation

  • Manuscripts addressing sustainable architecture, green building, smart cities, or innovative design approaches are highly encouraged.

Types of Contribution

  • Original research articles
  • Review papers
  • Case studies and applied architectural projects

Review Ethics

  • The review process must be conducted in a confidential manner
  • Reviewers must not directly contact the authors
  • Discussion with third parties requires editor approval
  • Reviewers must report to the editor if there are indications of:
    • Plagiarism
    • Data fabrication or manipulation

Review Recommendations

Reviewers are requested to provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Accept with major revisions
  • Reject

Comment Format

Reviewer comments should be structured into two parts:

Comments to the Editor (Confidential)

  • Internal evaluation not visible to the author

Comments to the Author (Author Feedback)

  • Clear, constructive, and actionable feedback to improve the manuscript

Closing

All review outcomes will be considered by the editor in making the final decision. Constructive and objective feedback is highly appreciated to enhance the quality of scientific publications in Journal Global Architecture, Materials, Management, and Regional Analysis (GAMMARA).