1. General Provisions

1.1. The manuscripts submitted by authors for publication in the scientific-practical journal “Construction and Architecture in Azerbaijan” are subject to peer review.

1.2. These Rules define the procedures and duration for the review of articles submitted for peer evaluation, as well as the requirements concerning the composition of the reviewers.

2. Requirements for the Peer Review of Research Papers

2.1. The editorial board of the journal accepts scientific and technical articles for consideration that are prepared in accordance with the “Guidelines for the Preparation of Scientific and Technical Articles.”

2.2. Once the article’s relevance to the journal’s profile is determined, it is sent for peer review on behalf of the editor-in-chief, with the author's name(s) withheld. The reviewer is informed that the submitted materials are the intellectual property of the authors and that disclosing any content to third parties is strictly prohibited. The reviewer is not permitted to copy the materials or transfer them to third parties.

2.3. The review must include the following: a freely written overview that evaluates the scientific (theoretical, methodological, and conceptual) level of the article, its scientific novelty, the degree of innovation and practical significance of the author’s findings, the contribution of those results to the advancement of scientific ideas within the relevant field, any shortcomings in the article, any evidence of plagiarism, and a conclusion regarding the advisability of publication, rejection, or possible revision. The review must be signed by the expert.

2.4. If the reviewer’s opinion is positive, the article is approved by the editorial board for publication in one of the upcoming issues of the journal.

2.5. If the reviewer recommends revisions or a re-evaluation, the manuscript is returned to the author for correction. Once revised, the article may be resubmitted to the reviewers for further assessment. If the second review is negative, the manuscript is rejected and should not be resubmitted to the editorial board.

2.6. In the case of a negative review, the editorial board issues a reasoned letter of rejection to the author(s) without disclosing the identity of the reviewer(s), and the review is enclosed.

2.7. The review process is carried out as follows:

a) the article is sent to the reviewer without the author’s identity being disclosed;

b) the review is returned to the author(s) without revealing the reviewer’s identity;

c) the reviewer must treat the article received for review as a confidential document. Unauthorized individuals may not access or discuss the article without permission from the editor-in-chief.

2.8. All reviews and recommendations concerning peer-reviewed articles are retained in the journal’s editorial office for one year from the date of publication. Upon official request, the editorial board has the right to send copies of the reviews to the relevant institution.

3. Duration of Peer Review

3.1. Once the manuscript is received by the editorial office, it is sent for peer review.

3.2. The peer review period shall not exceed ten working days from the date the manuscript is submitted to the reviewer. An extension of the review period shall not exceed five additional days.

3.3. If the expert fails to submit a review within the time frame stipulated by these Regulations, the manuscript may be reassigned to another expert by decision of the editorial board.

4. Composition of Reviewers

Members of the journal’s editorial board, as well as individuals holding a Doctor of Science or a Ph.D. degree in a field corresponding to the scientific specialization of the article, may serve as reviewers.

5. Duties of Reviewers

5.1. The review prepared by the reviewer assists the editor in making decisions regarding the article and helps authors improve the quality of their work.

5.2. A reviewer who does not have sufficient time to evaluate the article must notify the editor and request to be excluded from the review process for the respective manuscript.

5.3. Reviewers are obliged to provide an objective assessment of the scientific article. They must express their opinions clearly and with supporting arguments.

5.4. Reviewers must identify studies that are relevant but not cited in the manuscript. Proper bibliographic references should be provided for previously published results mentioned in the manuscript. The reviewer must inform the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and other previously published articles in the field.

6. Transparency and Conflict of Interests

6.1. Unpublished data related to the submitted article may not be used in personal research without the written consent of the author. Any scientific data or ideas identified during the peer review process must be kept confidential and may not be used for personal gain.

6.2. Reviewers who have a conflict of interest arising from competition, collaboration, or any other relationship with the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the submitted work should not review the manuscript.