Peer review process

AND – Architetture, città e architetti adopts a rigorous double-blind peer review process.
Each submission is evaluated by at least two external reviewers, selected on the basis of specific disciplinary expertise, independent from both the Editorial Board and the authors.

The review process ensures impartiality, transparency, and scientific quality, according to criteria of originality, methodological rigor, clarity of exposition, proper use of references, and contribution to the scientific debate.
Authors receive the reviewers’ comments in full, in order to foster improvement of the manuscripts and guarantee maximum transparency of the process.

AND employs a double-blind peer review process for scientific articles submitted to the journal.

At least two external reviewers assess each scientific article, selected for their disciplinary expertise and independence from the authors and the editorial decision-making process.

The assessment is based on criteria of originality, methodological rigour, scientific relevance, clarity of presentation, correct use of sources and contribution to the advancement of knowledge.

Authors receive reviewers’ judgements and comments anonymously to promote scientific improvement and transparency in the assessment process.

The Editorial Board, with support from the editorial team and issue editors, subjects scientific contributions to a preliminary assessment of relevance and compliance with the journal’s editorial policies. The Editorial Board forwards manuscripts accepted for the next stage, in anonymous form, to at least two independent reviewers selected for their relevant scientific expertise.

Reviewers provide a reasoned assessment, along with any suggestions for revision. The editorial team receives the reports and forwards them to the authors without revealing the reviewers' identities, in accordance with the confidentiality of the process.


Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria:

  • Originality
  • Relevance to the aims and scope of the journal
  • Cultural and/or technical merit and validity
  • Soundness of the methodology
  • Completeness of the reported work
  • Conclusions supported by data
  • Proper acknowledgement of related work through references
  • Effectiveness of the manuscript (organization and writing)
  • Clarity of tables, figures, and illustrations

If the article is accepted with major revisions requested by the reviewers, the author(s) will be invited to improve the article according to the reviewers’ suggestions. The revised article will then be subject to an additional review.
After collecting the reviewers’ reports, the editors make a recommendation on the article’s acceptability to the Editor-in-Chief.


Stages of the audit process

The peer-review process adopted by AND consists of the following stages:

1. Receipt and preliminary assessment

Manuscripts are submitted to the editorial team via the email address specified in the call for papers. The Editorial Board, with support from the editorial team and the issue’s editors, assesses the manuscripts' relevance to the journal’s scientific objectives and their compliance with the editorial guidelines.

2. Selection of reviewers

The journal sends submissions accepted for scientific evaluation, in anonymous form, to at least two independent reviewers selected from academics and researchers with specific expertise in the topics addressed. Selection considers disciplinary relevance and the absence of conflicts of interest.

3. Scientific evaluation

Reviewers provide a reasoned assessment using the designated review form, considering the originality of the contribution, methodological soundness, the quality of the argumentation, bibliographical rigour, and the scientific relevance of the results.

4. Communication of results

The editorial team informs the authors of the review outcomes, accompanied by the reviewers’ anonymous assessments.

The outcomes may include:

  • Acceptance of the paper;
  • Acceptance subject to revisions;
  • Rejection of the paper.

5. Revision of manuscripts

When amendments are requested, authors are invited to revise the manuscript based on the comments received. If substantial revisions are required, the new version may undergo a further round of scientific evaluation.

6. Possible third opinion

If assessments diverge or further scientific scrutiny is required, the Editorial Board may seek the opinion of a third independent reviewer, selected for relevant disciplinary expertise.

7. Editorial decision and publication

The journal's Editorial Board makes the final decision on acceptance based on the scientific assessments received and the manuscript’s consistency with AND’s editorial policy.

AND sends accepted manuscripts that comply with the editorial guidelines for publication.

AND handles review reports and communications related to the evaluation process confidentially, while respecting the anonymity of reviewers and authors.


AND's peer-review process is based on the international principles of integrity, independence, transparency, and editorial responsibility promoted by COPE, DOAJ, Scopus, and WoS, with particular emphasis on the scientific quality of submissions, the confidentiality of reviews, and the management of potential conflicts of interest.