Guide for Reviewers

On This Page

Journal of Management and Planning Research (JMPR)

1. The Role of Reviewers in JMPR

Reviewers are central to maintaining the quality, credibility, and relevance of the Journal of Management and Planning Research (JMPR). Your evaluation helps:

  • Ensure that each manuscript meets appropriate scholarly standards.

  • Strengthen papers through constructive feedback.

  • Preserve JMPR’s interdisciplinary scope, linking management and planning research and practice.

Journal of Management and Planning Research (JMPR) is a singlr blind refereed journal: reviewers remain anonymous to authors. Please do not reveal your identity in the review text or in tracked changes.

2. Peer Review Model and Ethics

By accepting a review invitation for Journal of Management and Planning Research (JMPR), you agree to:

  • Treat the manuscript as confidential.

  • Not share it with students, colleagues, or third parties without explicit permission from the Editor-in-Chief.

  • Not use, cite, or build on any unpublished ideas, data, or designs from the manuscript in your own work until it is formally published and publicly available.

  • Declare any conflict of interest (see below) and decline the review if necessary.

You should not upload the manuscript or any substantial part of it into external tools or platforms that do not guarantee strict confidentiality.

3. Conflicts of Interest

Please decline the review (or immediately inform the editorial office) if:

  • You are or have recently been a co-author, project collaborator, or close colleague of any author.

  • You are currently in a supervisory (advisor/advisee) or close mentoring relationship with an author.

  • You stand to gain or lose direct personal, financial, or institutional benefit from the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.

  • You feel unable to provide an impartial, unbiased evaluation.

If you are unsure whether a situation constitutes a conflict, briefly explain it in your reply to the editorial office and ask for guidance.

4. Scope and Fit with JMPR

As a reviewer, one of your first responsibilities is to assess whether the manuscript aligns with the scope of the Journal of Management and Planning Research (JMPR). JMPR publishes research that advances knowledge and practice in management, planning, and policy, with particular interest in work that is methodologically rigorous and relevant to real-world decision-making. The journal focuses on:

  • Management research
    (strategy, organizational behavior, HRM, operations and supply chain, project and program management, entrepreneurship and innovation, governance, performance management, risk and resilience, digital transformation, and related areas).
  • Planning and policy research
    (urban and regional planning, infrastructure and transport planning, land use and housing policy, environmental and sustainability planning, public policy and governance, institutional and development planning, and research linked to public- and private-sector decision making).
  • Applied management and planning studies
    (case studies, program and project evaluations, planning frameworks, implementation analyses, and evidence-based practice papers grounded in systematically collected data with clearly articulated objectives, methods, and outcomes).

If the manuscript clearly falls outside these domains, please state this explicitly in your review comments and reflect it in your recommendation.

5. What to Evaluate

When reviewing a research paper, please consider the following dimensions:

  1. Originality and Contribution

    • Does the manuscript address a significant and clearly defined problem in architecture, planning, or design?

    • Does it offer new insights, methods, or interpretations, or extend previous work in a meaningful way?

    • Does it clearly explain how it relates to and advances existing literature, including (where relevant) past JMPR articles?

  2. Theoretical and Empirical Soundness

    • Are the conceptual framework and research questions well articulated?

    • Are the methods appropriate, clearly described, and rigorously applied?

    • Are data, case studies, or design evidence presented in a way that supports the conclusions?

    • Are limitations acknowledged where appropriate?

  3. Clarity and Structure

    • Is the paper logically organized (introduction, background, methods/procedure, results, discussion, implications, conclusions)?

    • Is the writing clear, readable, and largely free of jargon?

    • Is the abstract accurate and informative, especially regarding the contribution and practical implications?

  4. Implications for Practice and Research

    • Does the manuscript explain how its findings can inform practice in architecture, interior design, urban design, or planning?

    • Does it contribute to the advancement of research, including suggestions for future work or new directions?

  5. Use of References and Scholarship

    • Are references current, relevant, and sufficient?

    • Are in-text citations and reference list entries consistent and accurate according to JAPR’s style?

    • Does the paper properly acknowledge the work of others?

  6. Figures, Tables, and Visual Material

    • Do tables and figures meaningfully support or clarify the text?

    • Are they clearly labeled, legible, and appropriately referenced in the manuscript?

When reviewing a design or planning project submission, please additionally consider:

  • Clarity of objectives: Are the goals of the design or project clearly stated?

  • Use of systematically collected information: Does the design or planning process draw on data, evaluation, or research insights in a structured way?

  • Contribution to practice and knowledge: Does the submission illustrate a design solution or planning approach that others can learn from or adapt?

  • Documentation quality: Are drawings, photographs, diagrams, and accompanying text sufficient to understand the project and its context?

6. Recommendation Categories

Your formal recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief will usually be one of the following:

  • Accept as is

  • Minor revisions (acceptance likely once small changes are made)

  • Major revisions (substantial improvements required; acceptance uncertain)

  • Reject (not suitable for JAPR or not of sufficient quality)

Please use the recommendation decision to summarize your overall judgment, and support it with clear, detailed comments in your report.

7. How to Structure Your Review

A helpful review typically contains two parts:

  1. Comments to the Editor

    • Brief, confidential summary of your overall view.

    • Any concerns about originality, ethics, conflicts of interest, or fit with the journal.

    • A concise justification of your recommendation.

  2. Comments to the Author(s)

    • Begin with a short, neutral summary of the manuscript in your own words (to show you have understood it correctly).

    • Then provide specific, numbered comments, such as:

      • Points of strength (what is good and should be preserved).

      • Major issues to address (e.g., unclear methods, weak link to literature, insufficient data, missing discussion of practice implications).

      • Minor issues (e.g., unclear sentences, figure labels, formatting, reference inconsistencies).

Please be:

  • Constructive – even when recommending rejection, aim to help authors understand how the work could be strengthened.

  • Respectful and professional – avoid dismissive or personal language.

  • Concrete – where possible, point to specific sections, examples, or missing elements.

Do not include any identifying information about yourself in comments to the authors.

8. Timeliness

We kindly ask reviewers to:

  • Respond to review invitations as soon as possible, ideally within 7 days, indicating accept or decline, so that manuscripts are not delayed.

  • Complete the review within the timeframe specified in the invitation email (typically 7–8 weeks).

If you anticipate a delay, please inform the Editor-in-Chief promptly so that alternative arrangements can be made if necessary.

9. Language and Suggestions for Revision

If the manuscript’s language is weak but the research is promising:

  • Please focus on the substance (methods, logic, contribution) and indicate that language editing is needed.

  • You may give a few examples of problematic sentences, but you are not required to copyedit the entire paper.

If you suggest additional literature:

  • Recommend only relevant, genuinely useful sources.

  • Avoid excessive self-citation or suggesting references solely to boost citation counts.

10. Open Access and CC BY 4.0

JMPR is a diamond open access journal, and all accepted articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.

For reviewers, this means:

  • Once published, articles can be read, shared, and reused widely, as long as proper attribution is given.

  • Your contribution as a reviewer supports the creation of freely accessible, reusable knowledge for the global community of architects, planners, and designers.

The authors retain copyright, and the journal holds a non-exclusive license to publish and disseminate the work.

11. Thank You

Your time and expertise as a reviewer are essential to the quality and reputation of the Journal of Management and Planning Research (JMPR). We are grateful for your careful reading, thoughtful critique, and commitment to improving the research and practice of architecture and planning.

If you have any questions about the review process or your role as a reviewer, please contact us at jmpr@lockescience.press.