Instructions for Reviewers

PROSTOR maintains its scholarly quality and academic reputation through a rigorous peer-review process conducted by qualified experts from diverse disciplinary backgrounds. As an interdisciplinary journal in the fields of architecture, urbanism, and the built environment, PROSTOR relies on reviewers to evaluate not only the scientific quality and originality of submitted manuscripts, but also their relevance, clarity, methodological rigor, and contribution to contemporary scholarly discourse.

The journal particularly values a constructive and developmental approach to peer review. Even in cases where manuscripts are not recommended for publication, reviewers are encouraged to provide thoughtful, respectful, and professionally valuable feedback that may assist authors in improving their work. Reviews should be written in English. 

Responsibilities of the Reviewer

Reviewers are responsible for critically evaluating manuscripts within their area of expertise and providing objective, constructive, and timely assessments. The review process should support the maintenance of high academic and ethical standards while contributing to the advancement of research in architecture, urbanism, and related disciplines.

Reviewers are expected to:

  • evaluate the originality, relevance, and scientific contribution of the manuscript;
  • assess the methodological rigor and clarity of the research;
  • identify strengths, weaknesses, and areas requiring improvement;
  • provide constructive recommendations for revision where appropriate;
  • maintain confidentiality throughout the review process;
  • disclose any conflicts of interest before accepting the review assignment;
  • report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other ethical concerns to the editors.

Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Before agreeing to review a manuscript, reviewers should consider the following:

Availability and Timeframe

Reviewers should accept assignments only if they are able to complete the review within the requested timeframe. Reviews are generally expected to be completed within two weeks of acceptance. If additional time is required, reviewers should inform the Editorial Office as soon as possible. If a reviewer is unable to complete the review, they are encouraged to decline promptly and, where possible, recommend an alternative qualified reviewer.

Conflicts of Interest

Any actual or potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed to the editors prior to accepting the review assignment. A conflict of interest does not necessarily prevent participation in the review process; however, transparency is essential to maintaining the integrity and impartiality of peer review.

Evaluation Criteria

When reviewing a manuscript, reviewers are asked to assess the following aspects:

Originality and Scientific Contribution

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript presents original research, innovative interpretations, or significant theoretical or practical contributions to the field. The paper should demonstrate scholarly relevance and contribute meaningfully to existing knowledge.

Relevance to the Journal

The manuscript should correspond to the aims and scope of PROSTOR and address topics relevant to architecture, urbanism, or related interdisciplinary fields connected to the built environment.

Structure, Organization, and Clarity

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript is clearly written, logically organized, and academically coherent.

Title

The title should accurately and concisely reflect the content and focus of the manuscript.

Abstract

The abstract should clearly summarize the objectives, methodology, principal findings, and conclusions of the study.

Introduction

The introduction should define the research problem, objectives, and theoretical background while situating the study within relevant scholarly literature. The originality and significance of the research should be clearly stated.

Materials and Methods

The methodology should be described with sufficient clarity and detail to enable evaluation and, where appropriate, replication of the research. Reviewers should assess whether the chosen methods are appropriate to the research objectives and whether the data collection and analytical procedures are adequately explained.

Results

The results should be presented clearly, systematically, and objectively. Reviewers should evaluate whether the analyses are appropriate and whether the presented findings are supported by the data.

Discussion and Conclusions

The discussion should critically interpret the findings and relate them to existing research and theoretical frameworks. Conclusions should be supported by the presented results and clearly demonstrate the contribution of the study to the advancement of knowledge in the field.

Tables, Figures, and Illustrations

Reviewers should assess whether tables, figures, graphs, photographs, and other visual materials are relevant, properly labeled, technically adequate, and effective in supporting the interpretation of the research findings.

Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to maintain strict confidentiality regarding all submitted manuscripts and associated materials. Manuscripts under review must not be shared, discussed, or used for personal advantage prior to publication.

If reviewers identify possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, unethical research practices, or substantial overlap with previously published work, they should immediately inform the editors and provide relevant evidence where possible.

Through their expertise and professional judgment, reviewers play a central role in maintaining the scientific quality, integrity, and international reputation of PROSTOR.