Peer Review 

All submitted manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review process, ensuring anonymity for both authors and reviewers. This rigorous evaluation method is applied to all articles to maintain fairness, objectivity, and high academic standards in the publication process.

Peer Review Process in the Quarterly Journal of Urban Sustainable Development:

1. Submitting the manuscript to the journal by the corresponding author
2. Initial evaluation (at least 10 business days)
3. Evaluation by the editorial board (at least 10 business days)
4. Peer review (at least 45 business days)
   This period will be extended if major revisions, a comparative review, or submission to a third reviewer are needed.
5. Submission of supplementary documents by the author (At least 30 business days for the author to submit the final revised version and abstract)
6. Final approval by the editorial board and setting a publication date
7. Page layout editing
8. Final manuscript approval by all the authors
9. Publication of the article

All manuscripts go through multiple rounds of revision before getting published, and independent peers within the research field will assess their quality, validity, and relevance. In the first round of peer review, the manuscript is reviewed by two expert referees. The journal will give the author an in-principle acceptance if both referees accept the manuscript. However, in some cases, the two referees may disagree about whether or not to publish the paper (one might reject while the second is in favor of acceptance). In this case, the author will be allowed to make further revisions per the reviewers’ comments. After the author's revision, the manuscript is sent to the third referee. The third referee’s opinion will determine whether the manuscript is accepted or rejected.

Reviewers’ decisions on the manuscript will be one of the following four options:

1. Accepted as is
2. Accepted after minor revisions
3. Accepted after major revisions and re-evaluation by the reviewer (In this case, after the author makes the revisions, the manuscript will be sent back to the reviewer for further comments. The manuscript will be rejected if the revisions have not met the required standard.)
4. Rejected

Note: If the authors disagree with a reviewer’s comments on all or part of the proposed revisions or have a convincing answer to the criticisms raised, they may provide their responses and justifications in a document titled "Response to Reviewers" on their personal page on the journal’s website in the file upload section. The editorial board and the reviewers will review this response, and the result will be communicated to the author.