top of page

Peer Review

All manuscripts (research articles and project analysis) are initially screened by the Editors. Papers not conforming to the topics of interest referred above will be considered unsuitable for review and returned to their Authors. Papers that are considered for review are sent to qualified, anonymous Referees throughout the world for double-blind peer review. Contributions that are selected for blind peer-review are typically sent to two Reviewers chosen by the Editors.

Selection for Peer Reviewers

Authors are welcome to suggest potential reviewers; however, it is the Editor's decision whether or not to honor such requests. Reviewers are selected on the basis of many factors, including expertise, prior publications in the same topic area, and prior performance as a reviewer for the Journal, including quality and timeliness.

The Responsibility of the Peer Reviewers

The Peer Reviewer acts as a consultant to the Editors of the Journal, and provides expert advice to the authors on their science as well as on the most effective ways to communicate their science. 
The Peer Reviewer is responsible for a critical read and evaluation of a manuscript submitted to the Journal in their specialty field. The Peer Reviewer is also responsible for providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their submission. 

Before Reviewing

After receiving an invitation to review, the Peer Reviewer should communicate the Editors about the following circumstances:

  • If the article does not match the Reviewer’s area of expertise,

  • If the Reviewer does not have time to complete the review within the proposed time frame,

  • If there are any potential conflicts of interest that should prevent the Reviewer from giving comments on the article.

The Review

The Editors encourage the Peer Reviewers to use the Journal Peer Review Form. Even if the use of this form is optional, the Peer Review Form provides useful guidance about the following aspects of the evaluation, which are:

  • The relevance of the article: Does the Peer Reviewer consider the topic of the article relevant to the Journal? Is the article a considerable contribution to the field of research? Does it stimulate the debate on important issues or alternative views?

  • The originality of the article: Are the topics covered in the article new? Do they provide original or promising approaches to research related to the topic?  

  • Title, abstract and keywords: do they express clearly and synthesize the contents of the article adequately?

  • Objectives and conclusion: Are they clearly elaborated?

  • General content and elaboration: Is the article well structured and ordered, does it effectively exhibit the materials? Is the presentation clear? Are the sources relevant? Are all images necessary, are they all cited in the text?

  • References: Are they necessary to substantiate the arguments provided? Do they include the most recent work or research on the subject? Are they appropriate, relevant and free from obvious or essential omissions?

  • Errors: are there any errors regarding information, data, calculation or analysis? Are there any errors in images, tables, references or citations?


Editing Referees' Reports

As a matter of policy of the Journal, comments that were intended for the authors are transmitted by the Editors; however, we reserve the right to edit a report in order to remove offensive language or to remove comments that reveal confidential information. 


Any evidence of plagiarism or serial publication of similar manuscripts will be carefully analyzed by the Editorial Team and discussed with the Authors. The confirmation of any evidence of plagiarism will result in the immediate termination of the review process.


As part of our double blind peer review policy, the Editors do not release Reviewers' identities to Authors or vice versa. We strongly discourage Reviewers from revealing their identities as they may be asked to comment on the criticisms of other Reviewers and on further revisions of the manuscript; identified Reviewers may find it more difficult to be objective in such circumstances. We also strongly discourage Authors from attempting to determine reviewer identities or to confront their reviewers directly. Our policy is to neither confirm nor deny speculation about reviewers' identities and we encourage reviewers to adopt a similar policy. We also strongly discourage Reviewers to suggest their own work as references to the Authors for the sole purpose of increasing their citation.

Acknowledgement to Reviewers

The names of the Peer Reviewers will be published in the final page of each Volume. Adding to this, the Editorial Office of Built Heritage will provide Peer Reviewer certificates upon the Reviewers’ request.

bottom of page