Review process
Peer review of submitted manuscripts is conducted to maintain the high scientific and academic standards of the journal "Bulletin of Lviv National Environmental University. Series "Architecture and Construction" and to ensure the selection of the most valuable and relevant research papers.
The journal applies a double-blind (anonymous) peer review process:
- reviewers are not informed of the identity of the author(s);
- authors are not informed of the identity of the reviewers.
Scientific articles submitted to the Editorial Office undergo an initial check for completeness, correctness of formatting, and compliance with the Author Guidelines published on the journal’s website.
The preliminary expert evaluation of a scientific article is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.
The Editor-in-Chief (or Deputy Editor-in-Chief) assigns a reviewer for the submitted manuscript from among the members of the Editorial Board responsible for the relevant scientific field.
In the absence of an Editorial Board member responsible for the relevant field, the Editor-in-Chief (or Deputy Editor-in-Chief) appoints an external reviewer for the manuscript.
Reviewers (both Editorial Board members and external reviewers) must be recognized specialists in the subject area of the submitted manuscript and have publications in the relevant field (preferably within the last five years).
After the expert evaluation of a scientific article, the reviewer may:
- recommend the article for publication;
- recommend the article for publication after revision by the author(s), taking into account the comments and suggestions provided;
- not recommend the article for publication.
If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after revision or does not recommend it for publication, the review must state the reason for such a decision. The Editorial Office recommends using the standard review form developed by the journal, which is available on the journal’s website.
During the peer review of scientific articles, reviewers are expected to:
- pay special attention to the relevance of the scientific problem addressed in the article;
- characterize the theoretical and applied significance of the research conducted;
- assess the correctness of the presented mathematical formulations, graphs, and figures;
- evaluate how the author’s conclusions correspond to existing scientific concepts;
- assess the authors’ compliance with academic ethics and the correctness of references to literature sources.
An essential element of the review must be the reviewer’s assessment of the author’s individual contribution to solving the problem under consideration.
It is advisable for reviewers to note in the review the consistency of style, logical structure, and clarity of the scientific presentation, as well as to provide a conclusion regarding the validity and substantiation of the author’s (authors’) conclusions in the study.
Scientific articles may be submitted for additional review. The reasons for repeated review may include:
- the reviewer’s stated insufficient qualification in the issues addressed in the scientific article;
- an insufficiently high-quality initial expert review;
- the highly controversial nature of the statements presented in the scientific article.
The completed review is submitted by the reviewer to the Editorial Office via email as a scanned copy.
The Editorial Office sends authors anonymized copies of the reviews (without disclosing reviewer identities) or a reasoned rejection decision regarding the submitted manuscript.
