The evaluation and initial acceptance processes of the articles for the Urban Sustainable Development Quarterly is divided into two steps:

Step one: Initial evaluation done by the editorial board

Step two: If confirmed by the editorial board, specialized evaluation by expert reviewers

At first in the evaluation process, the article would be adjudicated on by two judges who are experts in the respective subject relevant to the article, and in case of a mutual confirmation by both judges, the article would be accepted. The "Mutual" vote from the two judges is a must for deciding on the process that the article would have to go through. If the two judges do not agree with each other in regard to the article_ meaning that one of them votes to the favor of the article and the other does not_ then the article would be sent to a third judge. Before the submission of the article to the third arbitrator, we would ask the writer to use the other two judges' feedback and edit the copy and then submit an edited version of the article to the third judge. To which end the third judge votes, decides the fate of the article in regard to the "Urban Sustainable Development" quarterly. After receiving a confirmation for two of the judges and the final confirmation from the editorial board, the article would be ready for publication.

The approximate time that the initial assessment and evaluation take, is 15 business days. In case the article passes the initial evaluation, it would be sent to the arbitrators. The least amount of time necessary for the adjudication on the articles sent to the "Urban Sustainable Development" journal, is 2 months. With that being said, we can conclude that from submission to the end of the arbitration process takes around two and a half months.

Reviewers’ decisions for the manuscript will be one of the following:

1. Approve the manuscript in its current form
2. Approve the manuscript with minor corrections.
3. Approve the manuscript with major corrections: This means that the manuscript needs general and structural changes (After revising the manuscript by the author, it will be sent to the reviewers for further judgment; if the reviewers approve the manuscript, the article will be published. The article will be rejected if the comments have not been addressed correctly and the reviewer thinks further revisions are needed.
4. Reject

*  Note: If an author disagrees with some or all of reviewers’ comments, she/he may submit her/his appeal in a text entitled "Responding to reviewers" and upload it through ‘Add files’ tab on the journal personal page and provide a counter- argument against reviewers’ comments and support them with the convincing evidence. The answer will be reviewed by the editorial board and the reviewers and then the author will be informed about the new decision.