Landscape Architecture relies on qualified peer reviewers to support the quality, integrity, and scholarly value of the journal. Reviewers play an essential role in evaluating submitted manuscripts, advising editors, and helping authors improve the clarity, rigor, and contribution of their work.
The journal uses a single-blind peer review process. In this model, reviewers know the identity of the authors, but the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to the authors. All reviewer reports, reviewer identities, editorial correspondence, and manuscript materials are treated as confidential.
1. Role of Reviewers
Reviewers are invited to provide an independent, objective, and constructive assessment of manuscripts submitted to Landscape Architecture. The purpose of peer review is to help the editor determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication and to help authors strengthen the scholarly quality of their work.
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts according to academic merit, originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.
2. Accepting a Review Invitation
Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should consider whether they have the necessary expertise, availability, and independence to complete the review properly.
Reviewers should accept an invitation only if they:
- Have appropriate knowledge of the manuscript’s subject area;
- Can provide a fair and objective evaluation;
- Can complete the review within the requested timeframe;
- Have no conflict of interest that could affect their judgment;
- Agree to keep the manuscript and review process confidential.
If a reviewer is unable to review the manuscript, they should inform the editorial office promptly. Where possible, they may suggest alternative qualified reviewers.
3. Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest before accepting a review invitation. A conflict of interest may be financial, institutional, personal, academic, professional, or competitive.
Reviewers should decline the review if they:
- Have recently collaborated with any of the authors;
- Work at the same institution as any of the authors;
- Have a close personal or professional relationship with any author;
- Have a direct academic or professional competition with the authors;
- Have financial or project-related interests connected to the manuscript;
- Feel unable to provide an impartial evaluation.
If a potential conflict becomes apparent after accepting the invitation, the reviewer should immediately inform the editorial office.
4. Confidentiality
Submitted manuscripts are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, copy, distribute, discuss, or use the manuscript or its contents without permission from the editor.
Reviewers must not:
- Share the manuscript with colleagues or students without editorial approval;
- Contact the authors directly about the manuscript;
- Use unpublished data, ideas, images, maps, drawings, plans, findings, or arguments for personal research or professional advantage;
- Disclose the review outcome or editorial correspondence to others.
If a reviewer wishes to consult another expert for a specific technical point, this must first be approved by the editor.
5. Scope of Evaluation
Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript fits the aims and scope of Landscape Architecture. The journal welcomes work related to landscape architecture, architecture, environmental science, engineering, arts and humanities, nature and landscape conservation, urban studies, cultural landscapes, ecological planning, green infrastructure, public space, heritage landscapes, and related fields.
A manuscript should be assessed for both disciplinary relevance and scholarly contribution. Reviewers should consider whether the paper advances knowledge, offers a clear argument, presents reliable evidence, and contributes meaningfully to research or practice in the field.
6. Main Review Criteria
Reviewers are encouraged to evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria:
Originality and Contribution
The reviewer should consider whether the manuscript presents original research, a new interpretation, a meaningful theoretical argument, a valuable review, or a significant case-based contribution. The manuscript should not merely repeat existing knowledge without adding scholarly value.
Relevance to the Journal
The reviewer should assess whether the manuscript is suitable for Landscape Architecture and whether it contributes to the journal’s academic areas, including landscape architecture, architecture, environmental science, engineering, arts and humanities, or nature and landscape conservation.
Research Design and Methodology
For empirical studies, the reviewer should evaluate whether the research design, data collection, methods, sampling, fieldwork, analysis, and interpretation are appropriate and clearly explained. For theoretical, historical, design-based, or critical papers, the reviewer should assess the strength of the conceptual approach, argument, sources, and analytical structure.
Literature and Context
The manuscript should engage with relevant literature and position the study within an appropriate scholarly context. Reviewers should note whether important studies, theories, methods, or debates have been overlooked.
Results and Interpretation
The reviewer should assess whether the findings are clearly presented and supported by evidence. Interpretations should be reasonable, logically developed, and connected to the study’s aims, methods, and scholarly context.
Figures, Tables, Maps, and Visual Material
Because landscape architecture research often relies on visual evidence, reviewers should assess whether figures, maps, plans, photographs, diagrams, drawings, and tables are relevant, legible, properly numbered, accurately captioned, and appropriately cited.
Ethical Compliance
Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript appears to follow ethical standards. This includes proper citation, responsible use of third-party material, accurate reporting of data, ethical approval where required, participant consent where applicable, and appropriate treatment of cultural, community, environmental, or heritage-related information.
Clarity and Organization
The manuscript should be clearly written, logically structured, and understandable to an academic readership. Reviewers should comment on whether the title, abstract, keywords, headings, introduction, methods, discussion, conclusion, and references are suitable and coherent.
7. Ethical Concerns During Review
Reviewers should inform the editor if they identify possible ethical concerns, including:
- Plagiarism or excessive text similarity;
- Duplicate publication or duplicate submission;
- Fabricated or falsified data;
- Manipulated images, maps, figures, or visual materials;
- Improper authorship;
- Undisclosed conflict of interest;
- Citation manipulation;
- Lack of required ethical approval or participant consent;
- Unauthorized use of copyrighted material;
- Misrepresentation of communities, cultural knowledge, heritage sites, or environmental data.
Reviewers should not investigate suspected misconduct independently. Ethical concerns should be reported confidentially to the editor.
8. Writing the Review Report
Reviewer reports should be clear, respectful, constructive, and evidence-based. Comments should help the editor make an informed decision and help the authors improve the manuscript.
A useful review report may include:
- A brief summary of the manuscript and its main contribution;
- An assessment of originality, relevance, and scholarly value;
- Comments on research design, methods, evidence, or argument;
- Comments on organization, clarity, figures, tables, and references;
- Major issues that must be addressed;
- Minor corrections or suggestions;
- A final recommendation to the editor.
Reviewers should distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions. Comments should be specific and should refer to sections, pages, paragraphs, figures, tables, or references where possible.
9. Tone and Professional Conduct
Reviewers should write in a professional and respectful tone. Criticism should focus on the manuscript, not on the authors.
Reviewers should avoid:
- Personal criticism;
- Dismissive or hostile language;
- Discriminatory comments;
- Unsupported claims;
- Overly brief or vague reports;
- Demands that authors cite the reviewer’s own work unless genuinely necessary;
- Requests for unnecessary additions that do not improve the manuscript.
The goal of peer review is to improve scholarly communication, not to discourage authors.
10. Reviewer Recommendations
After completing the review, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:
- Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantial revision.
- Minor Revision: The manuscript is suitable for publication after limited corrections or clarifications.
- Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial improvement before it can be considered for publication.
- Revise and Resubmit: The manuscript has potential but requires extensive revision and may need further review.
- Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form or does not meet the journal’s standards.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the editor after considering all reviewer reports, editorial assessment, journal scope, ethical issues, and the quality of the revised manuscript where applicable.
11. Reviewing Revised Manuscripts
When reviewing a revised manuscript, reviewers should evaluate whether the authors have adequately addressed the previous comments. Reviewers should examine the revised manuscript and the authors’ response letter.
The reviewer should consider:
- Whether major concerns have been resolved;
- Whether the authors’ explanations are reasonable;
- Whether new material improves the manuscript;
- Whether any new problems have been introduced;
- Whether the manuscript is now suitable for publication.
Reviewers should not introduce entirely new major requirements at the revision stage unless the revised manuscript raises new concerns or the issue is essential to scholarly quality or ethical integrity.
12. Use of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Tools by Reviewers
Reviewers are responsible for maintaining confidentiality. Manuscripts, reviewer reports, data, images, maps, figures, or unpublished findings should not be uploaded to public artificial intelligence tools or external digital platforms that may store, process, or reuse confidential content.
If reviewers use any digital tool to assist with language checking, note organization, or technical assessment, they remain fully responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity of the review. The final review must reflect the reviewer’s own expert judgment.
13. Timeliness
Reviewers should complete their reports within the timeframe requested by the editorial office. If a reviewer needs more time, they should inform the journal as early as possible.
Timely peer review helps authors receive decisions efficiently and supports the journal’s publication schedule. Landscape Architecture publishes one volume per year with four issues, released in March, June, September, and December.
14. Editorial Independence
Reviewers provide advice to the editor, but editorial decisions are made independently by the journal. Reviewers should not attempt to influence the editorial process outside their formal review report.
Editorial decisions are based on academic quality, originality, relevance, ethical compliance, reviewer comments, and editorial judgment. As a diamond open access journal, Landscape Architecture does not charge article processing charges or publication fees, and publication decisions are not influenced by payment.
15. Recognition of Reviewers
The journal values the time, expertise, and professional service provided by reviewers. Peer review is an important contribution to scholarly communication and helps maintain the academic quality of Landscape Architecture.
Reviewer identities remain confidential under the journal’s single-blind review process unless the journal adopts a specific reviewer recognition policy with the reviewer’s consent.
16. Contact for Reviewers
Reviewers with questions about a manuscript, review deadline, conflict of interest, technical issue, or ethical concern should contact the editorial office.
For manuscript-related and review-process inquiries, contact: editassist@landscarchitmag.org
For general journal inquiries, editorial policies, and ethical matters, contact: editor@landscarchitmag.org