Peer Review Process
Each submission is checked for suitability when received by the editorial office and maybe rejected without review if it is outside the scope of the journal, is obviously of insufficient quality, or is missing important sections.
Authors are encouraged to suggest suitable reviewers, but the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial office reserve the right to select different reviewers. The reason for asking authors to suggest reviewers is that they are best placed to know who is an expert in the field. In addition, the suggested reviewers may be suitable for other articles on the same topic. Therefore, obtaining these names can help the editorial office to ensure that it is approaching suitable people to review all articles. As it is mentioned before, Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning (DRArch) has a tendency and attitude sensitivities about being independent and respectful
The journal uses double-blind peer review (neither the authors nor the reviewers know the identity of each other) to avoid bias. The purpose of a peer review is to assist the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author, this may also assist the author in improving the paper. In the evaluation process of articles, a suppressive interaction and information request should not be made about time management, content, or referee.
On receipt of at least two reviews, (All the reviewers of a paper act independently and they are not aware of each other’s identities. If the decisions of the two reviewers are not the same (accept/reject), the Editor may assign a third reviewer) Editor-in-Chief will make a decision of (1) accept, (2) revision required, or (3) reject. The reasons for the decision will be communicated to the authors.
When the decision of minor/major revision is made, and the authors do not revise their articles satisfactorily after receiving reviewer reports. The Editor-in-Chief or co-editors reserves the right to reject the article. When revised articles are received they will either be sent out for further review or the Editor-in-Chief or co-editors will make a decision depending on the level of revision requested.
The time to review and make a decision is extremely variable since it is sometimes difficult to find suitable reviewers, and there may be delays in receiving reviewer reports. The Editor-in-Chief and editorial office make all efforts to minimize the time from submission to the first decision. The journal aims to make a first decision (after review) within 40–60 days, but cannot guarantee this.
After review, the manuscript goes to the ‘Copy Editor’ who will correct the manuscript in respect of the correct referencing system in accordance with the journal style and layout. However, Copy Editor is responsible for structuring the original manuscript, including figures and tables, into an article, activating the necessary links, and preparing the manuscript in various formats, in our case PDF format. When the Copy Editor finishes his/her job, the manuscript will be sent to ‘Language Editor’.
The Language Editor confirms that the manuscript has gone through all the requisite stages and is suitable for publishing.
DRArch archives all submitted papers and referee reports. Submissions whether they are published or not being returned.
Authors are responsible for their papers' writing quality and compliance with academic ethics. <Back to Journal Policy>
