Instructions for reviewers

Peer review process

Manuscripts submitted to the Articles section undergo a double-blind peer review by at least two independent experts. Neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other’s identities.

Urbani izziv relies on the professionalism and expertise of its reviewers to uphold the journal’s standards of quality in urban studies, urban planning, and related fields. Reviewers not only evaluate the scholarly rigor of manuscripts but also provide authors with constructive feedback to strengthen their work. We value reviews that are respectful, clear, and detailed enough to support both editorial decisions and author revisions.

Reviews must be written in English for manuscripts submitted in English, and in Slovenian for manuscripts submitted in Slovenian.

The peer reviewer classifies the article into one of the COBISS (Co-operative Online Bibliographic System and Services) bibliographical categories. The editor verifies the classification, and in case of disagreement, makes the final decision in consultation with the editorial board. Submissions that are not peer reviewed are classified directly by the editor. A description of bibliographical categories is available here.

Authors are informed of the peer review results within three months of submission. If changes or improvements are required, the article is returned to the author. The editor may also propose corrections. Authors must respond to reviewer/editor comments within the specified deadline. Revised manuscripts are checked again by reviewers and/or the editor. No changes should be introduced that have not been requested.

If the review does not require revisions, the editor notifies the author that the manuscript has been accepted. The editorial board reserves the right to reject contributions based on the reviewers’ or editor’s opinion, or if they do not meet the journal’s language and formatting standards.

Reviewer obligations

As a reviewer, you are expected to:

  • Provide an objective, constructive, and fair evaluation of the manuscript. Highlight both strengths and weaknesses to help improve the paper.
  • Assess whether the work is relevant, original, and contributes meaningfully to the field.
  • Respect confidentiality. Manuscripts may not be shared, copied, or discussed with others without prior approval from the editor.
  • Ensure timely completion of the review (within two to three weeks). If this is not possible, notify the editorial office immediately and, if possible, suggest an alternative reviewer.
  • Disclose any potential conflicts of interest (personal, professional, financial, or institutional). Declaring a conflict does not automatically disqualify you but ensures transparency.

Submitting your review

Reviews must be submitted through the OJS submission platform. To review an article, you will need to register with the system. The process remains anonymized: authors will not see your identity, and you will not know theirs.

Guidelines for reviewing manuscripts

When writing your review, please consider the following aspects:

  • Is the title clear and appropriate?
  • Does the abstract accurately reflect the article (purpose, methods, key findings, and conclusions)?
  • Are the research goals, questions, or hypotheses clearly stated in the introduction?
  • Literature review. Is the theoretical background well grounded in relevant, up-to-date literature?
  • Are the methods and analyses sufficiently explained to ensure replicability? Are statistical or qualitative methods applied correctly?
  • Are findings presented clearly, logically, and with appropriate analysis?
  • Are claims supported by the results? Do authors relate their findings to existing research and explain the broader significance?
  • Tables and figures. Are tables and figures clear, necessary, and appropriately integrated?
  • Do the references match in-text citations, and are they relevant and current?
  • Overall assessment. How would you assess the clarity of writing, use of terminology, literature review, and the originality and contribution of the work?

At the end of your report, please provide an overall recommendation: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject.