•  
  •  
 

Policies and Ethics

Contents

Iraqi Journal of Architecture and Planning (IQJAP) is dedicated to upholding the highest ethical standards in scholarly publishing, guided by the principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal emphasizes integrity, fairness, and transparency in all editorial and peer review processes. Authors submitting manuscripts acknowledge that they have read and agree to abide by the journal’s policies, ensuring that their work conforms to the ethical guidelines and standards outlined by the publication.

Who Can Submit?

Submissions to Iraqi Journal of Architecture and Planning (IQJAP) must be made by authors who hold the copyright to their work or have obtained all necessary permissions from relevant rights holders. Authors are required to confirm that their submissions are original, have not been previously published, and are not under consideration by another journal or publisher. By submitting a manuscript, authors affirm that these conditions are met and that the work complies with the journal’s editorial and ethical standards.

Open Access Policy

IQJAP is an open-access journal. All published articles are made freely and permanently available online without subscription or access barriers for readers or institutions. This open-access model supports the broad dissemination of scholarly research and facilitates the exchange of knowledge among researchers, practitioners, and the wider academic community at national, regional, and international levels.

Copyright Statement

Authors publishing in IQJAP retain the copyright to their work without restrictions. As a condition of publication, authors grant the journal the non-exclusive right to publish, reproduce, and distribute the article in all formats and media, and to identify itself as the original publisher of the work.

Licensing

All articles published in IQJAP are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution–ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0). This license permits users to read, download, copy, distribute, share, adapt, and build upon the material for any purpose, provided that appropriate credit is given to the original authors and the journal, a link to the license is included, and any derivative works are distributed under the same license.

Acknowledgment

Authors should acknowledge individuals, institutions, or organizations that contributed to the research or preparation of the manuscript but do not meet the criteria for authorship. This includes contributions such as technical assistance, methodological or data collection support, language editing, or constructive scholarly feedback. Authors should also acknowledge entities that provided financial or material support for the study. All acknowledgments must be accurate, transparent, and limited to contributions actually received. The inclusion of individuals or organizations without their involvement or consent, or the misrepresentation of contributions or support, is considered unethical and may result in editorial action in accordance with the journal’s ethical standards.

Advertisements

The journal does not accept any advertising from third parties.

Affiliations

All authors must provide complete, accurate, and verifiable institutional affiliation information at the time of manuscript submission. For research articles, the listed affiliation should reflect the institution(s) where the research was conducted or substantially supported. For non-research articles, such as review, perspective, or commentary articles, authors should indicate their current institutional affiliation. If an author has changed institutions after completing the work, the affiliation associated with the research should be listed as the primary affiliation, with the current affiliation clearly indicated as a separate note.

Affiliations should include, at a minimum, the department or unit (where applicable), institution name, city, and country, and should be presented consistently for all authors. Authors are responsible for ensuring that affiliation information is accurate and appropriately represents institutional involvement in the work. Deliberate misrepresentation, omission, or manipulation of affiliation details is considered a breach of publication ethics and may result in editorial action in accordance with the journal’s ethical and misconduct policies. Accurate affiliation reporting is essential for proper attribution, institutional accountability, transparency in research reporting, and the integrity of the scholarly record.

Appeals and Complaints

Appeals

Iraqi Journal of Architecture and Planning (IQJAP) considers appeals to editorial decisions when they are based on substantive academic or procedural grounds. Appeals should present clear justification supported by new information, evidence, or clarification that was not adequately addressed during the initial review. Authors submitting an appeal must respond directly and systematically to the comments provided by reviewers or editors, explaining how the additional information may affect the evaluation of the manuscript. Appeals are most likely to be considered when they raise issues related to the scholarly validity, methodological soundness, or ethical aspects of the work. Disagreement with an editorial judgment alone, particularly in cases involving scope, priority, or suitability, is not normally sufficient grounds for appeal.

Complaints

Complaints concerning editorial procedures, peer review conduct, authorship disputes, conflicts of interest, or post-publication issues should be submitted to the Editors-in-Chief through the editorial office. All complaints are examined carefully and confidentially, with relevant information gathered from the parties involved. Investigations and any resulting actions are conducted in accordance with the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Where necessary, editorial processing may be paused while a matter is under review. If a complaint involves a member of the editorial leadership, the issue will be handled by senior members of the editorial board who are independent of the matter.

First Point of Contact

Appeals and complaints should be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief of Iraqi Journal of Architecture and Planning (IQJAP) via the journal’s official editorial email address: ijae@uotechnology.edu.iq. The editorial office will acknowledge receipt of the submission and ensure that the matter is reviewed in a fair, confidential, and timely manner. Where a complaint involves the Editor-in-Chief, the matter will be handled by a senior member of the editorial board independent of the issue.

Authorship

Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made substantial contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the paper (e.g. Language editing or data gathering), they should be recognized in the acknowledgements section as researcher assistants/associates. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included, no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the article and have agreed to its submission for publication. The authors take collective responsibility for the work. Each author is accountable for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Authors are expected to consider the list and order of authors carefully before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. Only in exceptional circumstances will the Editor consider (at their discretion) the addition, deletion or rearrangement of authors after the manuscript has been submitted. The author must flag any such request to the Editor. All authors must agree with any such addition, removal or rearrangement.

Citations

Authors are required to cite sources accurately, responsibly, and in a manner that reflects the scholarly foundations of their work. All references included in a manuscript must be directly relevant to the research and should support the arguments, methods, or interpretations presented. Authors are expected to give appropriate credit to prior studies that informed or influenced the work, with particular attention to original and peer-reviewed sources that ensure the reliability and academic value of the reference list. Citations must be prepared in accordance with the journal’s prescribed referencing style as detailed in the Author Guidelines.

Authors are responsible for the completeness and correctness of all citation information and for ensuring that cited works are accessible and verifiable. Practices such as citation manipulation, inappropriate inflation of reference lists, or excessive self-citation intended to influence metrics are considered unethical and inconsistent with responsible scholarly communication. Any concerns related to improper citation practices may be addressed during peer review or after publication and may result in editorial action, including revision requests, rejection, correction, or retraction, in accordance with the journal’s ethical policies and the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Confidentiality

Information obtained during confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the author's explicit written permission for the work involved in these services.

Conflict of Interest

Conflict of interest is "a divergence between an individual's private interest (competing interests) and his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities, such that a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual's behaviour or judgment was motivated by considerations of his or her competing interests". All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could be viewed as inappropriately influencing (bias) their work.

All sources of financial support for the conduct of the research and/or preparation of the article should be disclosed, as should the role of the sponsor(s), if any, in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. This should be stated if the funding source(s) had no such involvement. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

Data Access and Retention

Authors may be asked to provide the research data supporting their paper for editorial review and/or to comply with the open data requirements of the journal. Therefore, authors should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should be designed to retain such data for a reasonable number of years after publication.

Images and Figures

Visual elements such as photographs, diagrams, charts, and other figures should be used to strengthen and clarify the presentation of research findings. Authors are encouraged to submit images that are clear, relevant, and effectively communicate the data and scientific message.

Authors should aim to provide figures with sufficient quality, resolution, and detail to support the scientific content and facilitate peer review. High-quality images contribute to the overall professionalism and impact of the publication. All images should be original or properly credited if created or reproduced from sources other than the authors. When using material from external sources, appropriate permissions or licenses must be obtained. Digital image manipulation should be done ethically, ensuring that it does not misrepresent data or results, and any modifications should be disclosed within the manuscript.

Regardless of copyright status or licensing, all figures and images must always be properly cited to acknowledge their original source, whether they are reused with permission or under licenses that permit unrestricted use. If requested, authors should be prepared to provide original or high-resolution versions of their images to verify clarity and authenticity.

Research and Publication Misconduct

Any form of misconduct related to the conduct, reporting, or publication of research is treated seriously and addressed in accordance with the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Forms of Misconduct

Research and publication misconduct includes, but is not limited to, unethical practices that compromise the reliability, transparency, or credibility of scholarly work. Examples include the fabrication or falsification of data, results, or research records; inappropriate manipulation of images or figures that misrepresents the original data; plagiarism or self-plagiarism through the unacknowledged reuse of text, ideas, or results; and duplicate submission or redundant publication of substantially similar content without proper disclosure. Other unacceptable practices include fragmenting a single study into multiple overlapping publications, manipulating citations to influence metrics, and improper authorship practices such as ghost, guest, or honorary authorship. All such behaviors are considered violations of the journal’s ethical standards.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

An author should not publish manuscripts describing the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a paper published previously, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis or as an electronic preprint

Image Integrity

Enhancing, obscuring, moving, removing, or introducing a specific feature within an image is unacceptable. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or colour balance are acceptable if and as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original. Manipulating images for improved clarity is accepted, but manipulation for other purposes could be seen as scientific and ethical abuse and will be dealt with accordingly.

Handling Allegations of Misconduct

Allegations of misconduct are handled carefully, confidentially, and fairly. Upon receipt of a concern, the editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the allegation falls within the scope of research or publication misconduct and whether it appears credible. If further examination is warranted, the corresponding author will be contacted on behalf of all co-authors and invited to provide a written response, supporting data, or relevant documentation within a specified timeframe. Where appropriate, the journal may seek advice from independent experts to assist in evaluating the matter. The journal recognizes that primary responsibility for investigating research misconduct rests with authors’ affiliated institutions. Accordingly, cases may be referred to relevant institutional authorities for formal investigation, and the journal may cooperate with such inquiries as appropriate. Based on the available evidence, the Editor-in-Chief will determine the appropriate outcome. Confirmed misconduct may result in actions such as rejection of the manuscript, publication of a correction, retraction, or expression of concern, consistent with COPE guidance. If allegations are not substantiated, the case will be closed without further action.

Throughout the process, confidentiality is maintained for all parties, and authors are given a fair opportunity to respond. Any corrective actions taken are transparently linked to the original publication to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.

Plagiarism Policy

Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to, the direct copying, close paraphrasing, or translation of another person’s work without proper acknowledgment, as well as the uncredited use of ideas, data, images, or results. Self-plagiarism, including the reuse of substantial parts of an author’s own previously published work without appropriate citation or disclosure, is also considered unethical.

All submitted manuscripts are screened for originality as part of the journal’s editorial and peer review procedures using plagiarism-detection tools such as iThenticate. Similarity reports are evaluated by the editors in context, with attention to the nature, extent, and sources of overlap, rather than relying on numerical similarity scores alone. Where concerns are identified, authors may be asked to provide explanations, revise the manuscript, or supply supporting documentation.

Confirmed cases of plagiarism may result in rejection of the manuscript, withdrawal or retraction of a published article, or other editorial actions in accordance with the journal’s ethical policies. The handling of plagiarism cases follows the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is intended to protect the integrity of the scholarly record. Authors are responsible for ensuring that all sources are properly cited and that their submissions represent original scholarly work.

Peer Review Process

Review Process and Submission

Iraqi Journal of Architecture and Planning (IQJAP) only selects the most knowledgeable in their fields to review the articles submitted for publication. The selection of a reviewer is based on several factors, the most important of which are the reviewer's availability and specialization alignment with that of the article under review.

This journal uses a Double-blind reviewing process, meaning that author name(s) and reviewer name(s) are concealed from each other throughout the review. Author and reviewer anonymity prevents bias, for example, based on an author's country of origin or previous controversial work. Additionally, articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered based on the content of their papers rather than their reputation. Generally, manuscripts are evaluated because they present new insight into the investigated topic and are likely to contribute to a research progress or a change in practice.

Please follow the following steps for a successful review:

I) Step 1: The Review Request

As a reviewer at IQJAP, you must familiarize yourself with the process and general guidelines for publishing at IQJAP by reading the Authors Guide and Reviewers Guide (this guide). Generally, you will receive Reviewing Request Email from the IQJAP editorial office asking you to review a specific article. A copy of the report under review (without authors' names) and the Article Evaluation Form will be attached to the email. If any files are missing or corrupted, please report them to the editorial office immediately.

It would be best if you tried to respond to the Reviewing Request by replying to the email as soon as possible (generally 48 hours) to avoid delaying the publication process. You should accept the reviewing Request only if:

  1. The manuscript sent matches your expertise

    If you receive a manuscript that covers a topic that does not sufficiently match your area of expertise, please notify the editorial office as soon as possible. Also, please feel free to recommend an alternative reviewer; it will be appreciated.

  2. Have enough time to review the manuscript

    Generally, finished reviews of an article should be completed within two weeks. If you do not think you can complete the assessment within this time frame, please let the editorial office know and, if possible, suggest an alternative reviewer. For your review to be efficient, allocating at least three uninterrupted hours per week to read the article, evaluate it, and provide constructive Feedback is wise.

    If you have agreed to review a paper but can no longer finish the work before the deadline, please get in touch with the editor as soon as possible. You can submit a reviewing extension request to the editorial office with reasons for the extension (need more time to finish the evaluation, require further data from the author, or have unexpected circumstances).

  3. There is no potential conflict of interests

    While conflicts of interest will not disqualify you from reviewing the manuscript, disclosing all conflicts of interest to the editors before reviewing is important. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interest, please do not hesitate to contact the receiving editorial office.

    If you feel you are not qualified/best suited to review an article, please decline the reviewing request as soon as possible while providing reasons for your decline. This information will improve the reviewing process's speed and efficiency and update our database.

II) Step 2: The Review

The deadline for reviewing any article and sending the final evaluation form is usually two weeks after receiving the reviewing request approval. However, reviewers can submit their final evaluation forms earlier if they feel there is nothing more to add and are certain of their decision. Before you start reviewing the article, you should know that IQJAP seeks to publish experimental and theoretical research results of outstanding significance in original research articles, review articles, conference papers, and perspective/commentary articles. Although it is the authors' responsibility to define his/her/their article as the appropriate type and comply with the corresponding general criteria described below, reviewers should carefully check and confirm that the right article type was chosen for the manuscript under review. (For more details, please check the Authors' Guide – Article Types)

Despite the article type, there are general criteria for evaluating the manuscript. Generally, reviewers are required to judge the manuscript validity to be considered for publication at IQJAP based on the requirements:

  1. Article alignment with journal aims and scope

    Is the article in line with the aims and scope of the journal? For example, does it satisfy the general criteria for the specific field of research selected by the author(s)?

  2. Content Quality and Originality

    Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the article adhere to the journal's standards? Is the research question an important one? To determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might be helpful to consider the research in terms of what percentile it is in. Is it in the top 25% of papers in this field? You might wish to do a quick literature search using tools such as Scopus to see if there are any reviews of the area. If the research has been covered previously, pass on references to those works to the editor.

  3. Organization and Clarity

    Title: Does it clearly describe the article?

    Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article? Is it the right length?

    Introduction: Does it accurately describe what the author hoped to achieve and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context and explain what other authors' findings are being challenged or extended. In addition, it should describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es) and the general experimental design or method.

    Method: If the data used were primary, does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article clarify what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?

    Results: This is where the author/s should explain what they discovered in the research. It should be laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are uncomfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.

    Conclusion/Discussion: Do the results support the claims in this section? Do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved scientific knowledge forward?

    Tables, Figures, Images: Are they appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand?

  4. Article and author(s) compliance to Research Ethics

    Although IQJAP continuously improves its system to identify ethical issues such as plagiarism, such methods are not always successful. The existence/clarity of the different precautions taken by the author to limit the ethical problems and comply with the research ethics could be one of the criteria for evaluation and areas for further improvement. However, this is a very sensitive subject. One of the reviewer's obligations is to inquire about other details from the author(s) via the editorial office about any part of the article to identify potential ethical issues if they suspect anything. This includes any supplementary data not included in the manuscript, such as raw/primary data, sampling… etc. Reviewers can check for any ethical issues, such as:

    • Plagiarism: If you suspect an article is a substantial copy or translation of another work, please inform the editorial office. Please cite the previous work and provide as much detail as possible.
    • Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editorial office.
    • Other ethical concerns: Has the confidentiality of the sample participants been maintained? Has there been a violation of the accepted norms? If so, then these should also be identified to the editorial office.

III) Step 3: Final Comments, Evaluation and Recommendation

After finishing the review and regardless of the final recommendation, reviewers must reply to the Reviewing Request email with the filled Article Evaluation Form attached. The Feedback should adhere to the IQJAP standards and be numbered according to article page numbers. Generally, you will have four options to choose from as your final evaluation decision:

  1. Accepting the Article - No revisions are required

    In this case, the article is of excellent quality and could be important in advancing academic knowledge. Moreover, the article adheres to IQJAP aims, scope and standards and has no issues or areas for further improvement.

  2. Accepting the Article - Revisions required - No need for re-evaluation

    In this case, the article is very good quality and could be important in advancing academic knowledge. The paper mostly adheres to IQJAP aims, scope and standards. However, minor revisions and improvements are required before publishing.

  3. Accepting the Article - Revisions required - Further evaluation is needed

    In this case, the article is of good quality and could be important in advancing academic knowledge. However, the paper needs further improvements to be aligned with IQJAP's aims, scope and standards. These improvements are critical for the report to be published. Thus it should be returned to you after revision to re-evaluate. Please keep in mind that you can accept or reject after re-evaluation. You can also get the article while requiring further modifications with/without re-evaluation a second time.

  4. Rejecting the Article

    In this case, the article is poor quality or lakes the requirements for advancing academic knowledge. Alternatively, the report does not adhere to IQJAP aims, scope and standards and has multiple issues that could not be accepted for publication in its current state.

    Your recommendation regarding an article will be strongly considered when the editors make the final decision, and your thorough, honest Feedback will be much appreciated. Please remember when writing comments to indicate the section intended for only the editors and the selection of words that can be returned to the author(s). Finally, please never hesitate to contact the receiving editorial office with any questions or concerns.

Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

Iraqi Journal of Architecture and Planning (IQJAP) is committed to maintaining the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of the scholarly record. The journal recognizes that questions, critiques, or concerns may arise after publication, and it supports responsible scholarly dialogue and, where necessary, timely correction of the literature. When post-publication issues are identified—whether by readers, authors, reviewers, editors, or third parties—the journal will assess the matter carefully and take appropriate action in line with COPE principles and guidance.

Post-Publication Discussions

IQJAP supports post-publication scholarly discussion through formal academic contributions, including perspective and commentary articles. Commentary articles may draw attention to, or present criticism of, previously published articles (as well as books or reports) and are considered an appropriate channel for constructive, evidence-based debate within the journal’s scope. In addition, readers and authors may communicate post-publication concerns directly to the editorial office. Submissions should be made in writing and include sufficient detail and supporting evidence to allow assessment. Where appropriate, the journal may invite author responses, request additional information or data, seek independent expert input, or publish editorial clarification.

IQJAP also recognizes the value of constructive, moderated discussions hosted on external platforms (e.g., PubPeer). If concerns raised on external platforms are brought to the journal’s attention, the editorial team will evaluate the claims on their merits, may request supporting documentation, and will take further steps when warranted, consistent with the journal’s ethical policies and COPE guidance.

Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

When an issue affects a published article, IQJAP may take post-publication actions to ensure the scholarly record remains accurate and transparent. These actions are guided by the nature of the issue, the strength of the evidence, and the potential impact on the reliability of the work, in accordance with COPE principles.

  • Corrections: A correction may be issued when a published article contains an error that affects clarity, accuracy, attribution, or interpretation but does not invalidate the overall findings. Corrections are published transparently and linked to the original article, and the article record may be updated with an appropriate notice to ensure readers are aware of the change.
  • Expressions of Concern: An expression of concern may be issued when there is a credible reason to question the integrity or reliability of a publication, but the available information is insufficient for a final determination, or an institutional or external investigation is ongoing. The notice is intended to alert readers while the matter is being examined and will be updated or replaced once the outcome is clear, as appropriate.
  • Retractions: A retraction may be issued when there is clear evidence that a published article is unreliable due to serious error, research misconduct, unethical practice, or other integrity concerns that undermine the validity of the work. Retractions are published in a transparent manner, linked to the original article, and provide an explanation of the reason for retraction to the extent possible and appropriate.

Final decisions regarding corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions are made by the Editor-in-Chief, potentially in consultation with the editorial board and relevant experts. Where appropriate, the journal may refer matters to authors’ institutions, recognizing that institutions have primary responsibility for investigating research misconduct. All post-publication actions are handled confidentially and fairly, with authors given an opportunity to respond, and are implemented in accordance with COPE flowcharts and guidance to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.

Notification of Fundamental Errors

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, the author must promptly notify the journal editor and publisher and cooperate with the Editor to retract or correct the paper if the editor deems it necessary. Likewise, suppose the Editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains an error. In that case, the author must cooperate with the Editor, including providing evidence to the Editor where requested.

Publication Ethics

Iraqi Journal of Architecture and Planning (IQJAP) follows the ethical principles and best-practice guidance of COPE to support integrity, transparency, and trust in scholarly publishing.

Responsibilities of Editors

  • Editorial decision-making
    • Make publication decisions based on scholarly merit, originality, relevance to scope, and methodological soundness.
    • Apply editorial policies consistently and avoid bias or discrimination.
    • Maintain editorial independence and avoid undue influence from sponsors, institutions, or commercial interests.
  • Confidentiality
    • Treat submitted manuscripts and related correspondence as confidential.
    • Share manuscripts only with those directly involved in editorial assessment and peer review.
  • Conflicts of interest
    • Declare and manage any conflicts of interest that could influence editorial judgment.
    • Recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a conflict exists (e.g., personal, financial, institutional, or collaborative relationships).
  • Ethical oversight and integrity checks
    • Take reasonable steps to identify and address misconduct concerns (e.g., plagiarism, redundant publication, data or image manipulation, authorship irregularities, inappropriate citation practices).
    • Seek clarifications and supporting documentation when concerns arise, and document decisions appropriately.
  • Complaints, appeals, and post-publication actions
    • Handle complaints and appeals fairly, consistently, and confidentially.
    • Correct the scholarly record when needed through corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions, following COPE-aligned procedures.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

  • Confidentiality and responsible handling
    • Treat manuscripts and review materials as confidential and do not share or use them for personal advantage.
    • Avoid uploading manuscripts to public tools or services that may compromise confidentiality.
  • Objectivity and quality of review
    • Provide constructive, evidence-based feedback focused on scholarship, clarity, and rigor.
    • Identify strengths, limitations, and areas for improvement in a professional and respectful manner.
  • Timeliness and communication
    • Accept reviews only when the manuscript fits their expertise and they can meet deadlines.
    • Notify the editorial office promptly if delays are unavoidable.
  • Conflicts of interest
    • Disclose any conflicts of interest before accepting a review and decline review assignments where a conflict could compromise impartiality.
  • Integrity vigilance
    • Alert editors to suspected issues such as plagiarism, redundant publication, unethical research practices, unreliable data, image irregularities, or inappropriate citations.
    • Provide supporting details when raising concerns (e.g., relevant references or specific sections affected).

Responsibilities of Authors

  • Originality and proper attribution
    • Submit original work and appropriately cite and acknowledge all sources, including ideas, text, data, and images.
    • Avoid plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and unattributed translation or close paraphrasing.
  • Single submission and publication transparency
    • Do not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time.
    • Disclose any closely related manuscripts, prior publications, preprints, or overlapping materials when relevant.
  • Authorship and contributions
    • Ensure that authorship accurately reflects substantial scholarly contributions.
    • Obtain agreement from all authors on the final manuscript and the order of authorship before submission.
    • Acknowledge contributors who do not meet authorship criteria in an acknowledgment section.
  • Conflicts of interest and funding transparency
    • Disclose any conflicts of interest that could be perceived as influencing the work.
    • Disclose relevant financial support and describe the role of sponsors, if any, in study design, data collection, analysis, writing, or publication decisions.
  • Data integrity, availability, and retention
    • Report methods and results accurately and retain underlying data for a reasonable period.
    • Provide supporting data or materials when requested for editorial assessment, peer review, or post-publication verification, where practicable and ethically permissible.
  • Image and figure integrity
    • Ensure figures accurately represent the underlying data.
    • Do not manipulate images in ways that mislead readers; disclose any legitimate adjustments that affect presentation.
  • Corrections of the record
    • Promptly inform the editors if a significant error is discovered in a submitted or published paper and cooperate in issuing a correction, clarification, or retraction when appropriate.
  • Ethical use of AI tools
    • Use AI tools responsibly and transparently.
    • Ensure that authors—not tools—remain accountable for originality, accuracy, and integrity, and disclose meaningful AI use when it affects the preparation of the manuscript.

Reporting Standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion' works should be identified as such.

Repository and Self-Archiving Policy

IQJAP supports the wide dissemination of scholarly research and permits authors to deposit their work in repositories and non-profit open-access platforms. This policy is intended to help authors share their scholarship responsibly while maintaining clear attribution to the journal as the original place of publication and remaining consistent with the journal’s licensing and publishing-rights framework. Repository deposit is also intended to support authors’ institutional and funder sharing requirements, provided that the conditions below are followed.

Versions Permitted for Deposit

IQJAP permits deposit of the following versions of a manuscript:

  • Preprints (pre-refereeing versions prior to peer review)
  • Author’s Accepted Manuscript (AAM) (final draft post-refereeing / post-review, prior to publisher formatting)
  • Version of Record (VoR) (the as-published PDF on the journal website)

Conditions of Deposit

  • Preprints: Preprints may be deposited on non-profit open-access servers, including an author’s personal website and institutional repositories. Preprints should be clearly labelled as a preprint (not peer reviewed) and should not be presented as the final published article. Once the article is published, authors should update the repository record to include the full citation and a link to the published article on the journal website.
  • Author’s Accepted Manuscript (AAM): Accepted Manuscripts (final draft post-refereeing) may be deposited on non-profit open-access servers, including an author’s personal website and institutional repositories. The deposited AAM should be clearly labelled as accepted (peer reviewed) but not the final published version. After publication, authors should update the repository record with the final citation details and a link to the published article on the journal website to ensure transparency and citation integrity.
  • Version of Record (VoR): For post-print sharing, IQJAP permits deposit of the VoR (as-published PDF). When depositing the VoR, authors must acknowledge the journal website as the published source within the repository record/webpage and include full citation details and a link to the journal’s published version.

Research Ethics and Consents

Research Involving Humans

Where a study involves human participants and/or personal data (e.g., surveys, interviews, focus groups, observations, participatory design or planning activities, POE, or other user/occupant studies), authors must comply with applicable laws and relevant institutional requirements. Authors should retain documentation of any required ethics review/approval (or exemption/waiver, where applicable) and provide it to the journal upon request.

Consent for Participation

Participation consent may be required when individuals are recruited to provide information or take part in research activities, including surveys, interviews, focus groups, recorded conversations, observational studies in non-public settings, or studies involving personal or sensitive data. Where consent is required, authors are responsible for obtaining and documenting informed consent (or documenting an approved waiver where permissible). Consent records should be retained by the authors and made available to the journal upon request.

Consent for Publication

Authors should avoid including identifying information unless it is essential to the scholarly purpose of the work. If a manuscript contains information that could identify an individual—directly or indirectly—such as recognizable photographs, audio/video material, detailed case descriptions, or location/contextual details that enable identification, authors must obtain explicit permission for publication from the individual (or an authorized representative) and retain documentation. Where identification is not necessary, authors should remove or anonymize identifying details to protect privacy.

Special Issues Policy

Purpose and Scope

Special issues (including special/additional issues and conference-proceedings issues) provide a structured venue for publishing a coherent set of papers on a clearly defined theme within architecture, planning, and the built environment. They are intended to highlight timely topics, emerging methods, or focused debates that fall within the journal’s aims and scope, while maintaining the same scholarly and ethical standards applied to regular issues. Special issue themes may originate from the editorial team or be proposed by external scholars acting as guest editors, but all special issues require formal editorial approval before any public announcement or solicitation of manuscripts.

Call for Papers and Submission Pathway

When a special issue is approved, the journal will publish an official call for papers outlining the theme, eligibility, key dates, and submission requirements. Manuscripts must be submitted through the journal’s standard submission system and must follow the same author instructions and editorial policies used for regular issues.

Guest Editors

Guest editors may be appointed when additional subject-matter expertise or networks are beneficial to the special issue. The journal may also manage special issues without guest editors. Where guest editors are used, their role is coordinated with the editorial team and may include:

  • shaping the thematic outline and contributing to the call for papers;
  • recommending qualified reviewers and supporting an efficient review workflow;
  • coordinating communication with authors during revision.

Guest editors must follow journal confidentiality requirements and must declare any conflicts of interest before taking on the role and again for each manuscript they handle. Guest editors do not have independent authority to accept or reject manuscripts; final decisions remain with the Editor-in-Chief (or a designated handling editor) to ensure consistency, impartiality, and alignment with COPE-recommended practice for guest-edited collections.

Manuscript Assessment and Peer Review

All submissions to a special issue undergo the same editorial screening and peer review applied to regular issues, including evaluation for scope fit, quality, originality, and ethical compliance. Peer review outcomes (accept, revise, reject) are based on reviewer reports and editorial assessment, and the EiC (or designated handling editor) makes the final decision. Special-issue status does not confer priority, guarantee acceptance, or relax editorial standards.

Publication, Labelling, and Communication

Approved special issues are published and clearly labelled as a special issue (or conference proceedings issue, where applicable) to ensure transparency and accurate citation. The journal may share announcements of published special issues through its normal communication channels to ensure discoverability, while maintaining clear separation between editorial decision-making and promotional activity.

Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies

Authors’ Use of AI in Manuscript Preparation

Authors may use AI-assisted tools to support manuscript preparation (e.g., language improvement, clarity, and readability), provided that the scholarly work remains the authors’ own. AI tools must not replace core research tasks such as designing the study, generating original scholarly arguments or insights, interpreting results, or drawing conclusions. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, originality, and proper citation of all content in the manuscript, and must carefully review and edit any AI-assisted output before submission.

Authors must disclose any use of AI-assisted tools in the manuscript, stating how and to what extent the tools were used, and where in the workflow they were applied. AI must not be listed as an author, and any meaningful AI contribution must be transparently acknowledged as part of responsible reporting.

Use of AI in Peer Review

To protect confidentiality and the integrity of peer review, reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts and associated files as confidential and must not upload, share, or process manuscript content using external AI tools or services. Review reports must reflect the reviewer’s independent scholarly judgment, and reviewers remain accountable for the content of their evaluations.

Ongoing Policy Development

IQJAP will continue to monitor developments in AI-assisted technologies and may update this policy as needed to maintain standards of confidentiality, scholarly rigor, and publication ethics, consistent with COPE-aligned best practices.

{ top }