Scope of peer review

Original research articles submitted to Urban Development Issues undergo a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.
Each research article is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript. Reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors and must not have any relationship or conflict of interest that could affect the impartiality of the review.
Book reviews, project reports, commentaries, editorial notes and other materials that do not undergo external peer review are clearly identified as non-peer-reviewed.

​Initial editorial assessment

​Each submitted manuscript first undergoes an internal editorial assessment.
At this stage, the Editorial Team verifies whether the manuscript:
  1. falls within the journal’s aims and scope;
  2. complies with the Guidelines for Authors;
  3. meets the basic requirements for a scholarly article;
  4. presents an original and relevant contribution;
  5. complies with the journal’s publication ethics requirements;
  6. is sufficiently clear and complete to be considered for external review.
The manuscript may also be screened using similarity-detection software.
A manuscript that does not meet these requirements may be rejected without external review. Authors are informed of the editorial decision.
Passing the initial editorial assessment means only that the manuscript will be considered for external peer review. It does not constitute acceptance for publication.

​Selection of reviewers

​Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated member of the Editorial Team on the basis of their subject expertise, research experience and independence from the authors.
Authors may be asked to suggest potential reviewers or identify individuals who should not be invited because of a possible conflict of interest. Such suggestions are not binding on the Editorial Team.
The Editorial Team makes the final decision regarding the selection of reviewers.

​Conflicts of interest

​Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, academic or personal relationship that could affect, or reasonably be perceived as affecting, their impartiality.
A reviewer should decline the invitation where a conflict of interest exists or where they do not have sufficient expertise or time to complete a reliable review.
Reviewers must not contact the authors directly concerning the submitted manuscript.

​Review criteria

​Reviewers are asked to assess, where applicable:
  1. the originality and relevance of the manuscript;
  2. its contribution to urban and regional studies;
  3. the clarity of the research objectives or questions;
  4. the appropriateness of the theoretical framework;
  5. the suitability and transparency of the methods;
  6. the reliability of the evidence, analysis and interpretation;
  7. the relationship between the conclusions and the results;
  8. the quality and relevance of the literature used;
  9. the organisation, clarity and academic standard of the text;
  10. compliance with ethical and research-integrity requirements.
Reviewers submit their assessment using the journal’s review form and provide a reasoned recommendation.

​Possible recommendations

A reviewer may recommend:
  1. acceptance without revision;
  2. acceptance subject to minor revisions;
  3. major revisions and resubmission;
  4. rejection.
A reviewer’s recommendation is advisory and does not, by itself, determine the editorial decision.

​Editorial decision

​The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on the manuscript, taking into account:
  1. the reports of the external reviewers;
  2. the authors’ responses and revisions;
  3. the opinion of the Editorial Team;
  4. the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s scope, standards and publication ethics policies.
Where the reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief may:
  1. request clarification or an additional assessment from the reviewers;
  2. invite a third independent reviewer;
  3. make a decision on the basis of the available reports and the Editorial Team’s assessment.
The final editorial decision may be:
  1. accepted;
  2. revisions required;
  3. resubmission for further review;
  4. rejected.
Authors are informed of the decision and, where appropriate, receive anonymised reviewer comments.

​Revision and further review

​Where revisions are requested, authors should submit:
  1. a revised version of the manuscript;
  2. a detailed response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed;
  3. a reasoned explanation where a suggested change has not been made.
A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated member of the Editorial Team, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.
Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

​Confidentiality

​Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports and editorial correspondence are confidential.
Reviewers must not:
  1. share the manuscript or review with another person without prior permission from the Editorial Team;
  2. use unpublished information, arguments or data from the manuscript for personal or professional advantage;
  3. disclose information about the review process;
  4. retain or distribute copies of confidential materials after completing the review.
Confidentiality must be maintained during and after the review process.

​Use of generative AI by reviewers

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, supplementary materials, review forms or confidential editorial correspondence to publicly accessible generative AI or AI-assisted systems.
A reviewer remains fully responsible for the content, accuracy and integrity of the submitted review. AI-generated content must not replace the reviewer’s own expert assessment.

Special Issues and Submissions by Editorial Members

​Articles submitted for special issues or thematic collections are subject to the same editorial and peer-review standards as other research articles.
Where an author is a member of the Editorial Team or Editorial Board, that person takes no part in selecting reviewers, accessing confidential reviews or making the editorial decision. The manuscript is handled independently by another editor.

​Submission of reviews

Reviewers are requested to complete the review form and return it to the Editorial Office at [email protected]