Instructions for Reviewers

Prostor reputation for excellence depends upon the professionalism of its reviewers. As a scholarly journal of architecture and urban planning, it invites reviewers from various disciplines to ensure that manuscripts meet high-quality standards appropriate to the scholarly disciplines the manuscripts represent. Consequently, reviewers also help determine how well manuscripts make accessible, or "translate," the sometimes technical perspectives of particular disciplines. Prostor prides itself on a developmental review process, and wherein even rejections provide authors with valuable advice. The review should be written in English. Exceptionally, it can be written in Croatian if the manuscript is submitted in Croatian.

The Responsibility of the Peer Reviewer
The peer reviewer is responsible for critically reading and evaluating a manuscript in their specialty field and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their submission. It is appropriate for the Peer Reviewer to discuss the article's strengths and weaknesses, improve the strength and quality of the work, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.

Before Reviewing
Please consider the following:

  • Do you have time to review the paper?
    Finished reviews of an article should be completed within two weeks. If you do not think you can complete the review within this time frame, please let the editor know and, if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer. If you have agreed to review a paper but will no longer be able to finish the work before the deadline, please contact the editor as soon as possible.
  • Are there any potential conflicts of interest?
    While conflicts of interest will not disqualify you from reviewing the manuscript, it is essential to disclose all conflicts of interest to the editors before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interest, please do not hesitate to contact the receiving editorial office.

The Review
When reviewing the article, please keep the following in mind:

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?

Organization and Clarity

  • Title: Does it clearly describe the article?
  • Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
  • Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately and clearly state the investigated problem? Typically, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context and explain what other authors' findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es), and the general experimental design or method.
  • Method: 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 he/she 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?
  • Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results? 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 the body of scientific knowledge forward?
  • Tables, Figures, Images: Are they appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand?
    Scope: Is the article in line with the aims and scope of the journal?