This journal adopts a double-blind peer review system, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.

① Manuscript submission
② Initial screening by the Editorial Board
③ Assignment of external reviewers
④ Notification of review results
⑤ Revision and re-review (if required)
⑥ Final decision on publication

① Each manuscript is evaluated by at least three reviewers.
② The Editor-in-Chief assigns a Handling Editor based on the subject area of the manuscript, and reviewers are appointed upon the recommendation of the Handling Editor.
③ Reviewers are selected from experts in the relevant field as recognized by the Editorial Board and must have no conflict of interest with the submitted manuscript.
④ The identities of reviewers are not disclosed, and the review process is conducted confidentially.

Manuscripts are evaluated based on the following criteria:
- Originality of the research
- Contribution to academic knowledge
- Validity of the methodology
- Logical organization and clarity
- Appropriateness of references
- Relevance to design practice in the built environment

- The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editorial Board based on the reviewers’ evaluations.
- The Editorial Board may request additional reviews if necessary.
- Authors must submit revised manuscripts within the specified period if revisions are requested. The Editorial Board evaluates the revised     submission and makes a decision based on the following categories:
① Accept
② Accept with Minor Revision
③ Major Revision
④ Reject
- A manuscript will be classified as Accept if at least two out of three reviewers recommend acceptance. In other cases, the decision will be     determined according to the journal’s evaluation criteria.
- For manuscripts classified as Minor Revision, authors must revise the manuscript in accordance with reviewers’ comments. The revised     manuscript will be evaluated by the Handling Editor without additional external review.
- For manuscripts classified as Major Revision, authors must revise the manuscript based on reviewers’ comments, and the revised version     will be sent back to reviewers for a second round of review. The outcome of the second review will be either Accept or Reject.
- The Editorial Board reserves the right to request additional rounds of review if deemed necessary

- The review process is, in principle, completed within three weeks.
- If a reviewer fails to submit a review within the designated period, the Editorial Board may replace the reviewer to ensure a timely review     process.
- The Editorial Board may extend the review period when necessary. confidentially.

- Authors may communicate with reviewers anonymously through the Editorial Board regarding review results and decisions.
- If authors submit comments or inquiries regarding the review outcome, reviewers will respond through the Editorial Board.
- Authors may file a written appeal regarding the review results and decision. The Editorial Board holds the final authority on all decisions.     No further appeals may be made against the final decision.
- The Editorial Board may request final revisions and improvements related to reviewer comments, proofreading, and editing prior to     publication.