Instructions to REVIEWERS

Arbitration system - External peer and anonymous evaluation

The editorial board of IROCAMM, once it has verified that the article complies with the rules regarding style and content indicated in the guidelines for authors, will send the article to two anonymous expert reviewers outside the Editorial Board, within the specific field of research and architecture criticism, according to the double-blind model.

The evaluation will affect the interest of the article, its contribution to the knowledge of the topic, the novelties contributed, the correct relationships established, the critical judgment developed, the bibliographic references handled, its correct wording, etc., indicating recommendations, if any, for possible improvement.

Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the journal editor will communicate the reasoned outcome of the evaluation to the authors by e-mail at the address they used to send the article. The editor will inform the principal author of the outcome of the review (publication without changes; publication with minor corrections; publication with major corrections; publication with major corrections; not suitable for publication), as well as the reviewers’ comments and observations.

If the manuscript has been accepted with modifications, the authors must resubmit a new version of the article, following the requests and suggestions of the external evaluators. If they so wish, authors may also submit a letter to the editorial board indicating the content of the amendments to the article. Articles with important corrections may be submitted to the Advisory Board to verify the validity of the author’s modifications.

In view of the degree of compliance with the modifications requested, the Advisory Council will decide whether or not to publish the article. This decision will be communicated to the author by the editor of the journal.

The evaluation will affect the interest of the article, its contribution to the knowledge of the topic, the novelties contributed, the correct relationships established, the critical judgment developed, the bibliographic references handled, its correct wording, etc., indicating recommendations, if any, for possible improvement. Please specify in the comments and assessments.