Policy of reviewing

The journal “Theory and Building Practice” adheres to high standards of scientific quality and academic integrity by ensuring a rigorous, transparent, and unbiased peer review process for all submitted manuscripts.

Peer Review Procedure

All submitted manuscripts undergo a multi-stage evaluation process. At the initial stage, the editorial office, namely by the Editor-in-Chief or his deputy conducts a preliminary screening to assess the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s scope, formatting requirements, and general academic standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without external review.

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are subjected to a double-blind peer review, ensuring the anonymity of both authors and reviewers. Prior to review, all identifying information is removed from the manuscript.

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts. One reviewer may be a member of the editorial board, while at least one is an external specialist in the relevant field.

Reviewer Selection Criteria

Reviewers are selected based on the following criteria:

• recognized expertise and academic qualifications in the relevant research field;
• proven research experience aligned with the manuscript’s topic;
• absence of conflicts of interest with the authors or the research;
• adherence to publication ethics and confidentiality principles.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and well-justified evaluations and to report any suspected ethical issues, including plagiarism.

Evaluation Criteria

During the review process, manuscripts are assessed according to:

• consistency between the title, content, and journal scope;
• relevance and scientific novelty of the research;
• methodological rigor and validity of results;
• practical significance and contribution to the field;
• clarity, structure, and quality of scientific writing;
• compliance with the journal’s formatting requirements.

Review Timeline

The standard review period is up to two weeks from the date the reviewer receives the manuscript. If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within this timeframe, they are required to inform the editorial office promptly so that an alternative reviewer can be assigned.

Documentation

The peer review process is conducted using standardized review form, which includes both qualitative assessments and formal recommendations. All reviews are archived by the editorial office for a defined period and serve as the basis for editorial decisions.

Authors receive anonymized review reports without disclosure of reviewer identities.

Editorial Decision-Making

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the following decisions may be made:

• accept the manuscript for publication;
• accept with minor revisions;
• request major revisions with subsequent re-review;
• reject the manuscript.

In cases of conflicting reviews, the manuscript may be sent to an additional reviewer. If two reviewers provide negative recommendations, the manuscript is rejected.

The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board by majority vote and confirmed by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the reviewers’ reports and the results of plagiarism screening.

Additional Provisions

Reviewers are required to:

• maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript;
• identify relevant published work not cited by the authors;
• report any ethical concerns or similarities with other publications;
• declare any potential conflicts of interest.

The journal “Theory and Building Practice” ensures a fair, transparent, and ethical peer review process aimed at maintaining high scientific standards and advancing research in building science and practice.