Guidelines for Referees

General information
Review procedure should be anonymous and shall be carried out in a strict confidence, both at the stage of reviews collection and circulation. Every form of external pressure during the process of review is prohibited and there should be no conflict of interest between referee and the author.
Reviewing each publication requires the appointment of two independent Reviewers who are not associated with REMV Editorial Board. Both referee and the author should not remain in close personal or professional relationships (including family relations and institutional affiliations) (‘double-blind review processes).

If a member of Editorial Team submits an article, he or she is excluded from the reviewing process. Other members of the Editorial Team shall under take his or her duties relating to the reviewing process.

Reviews of scientific manuscripts should not be prepared by the Editors as well as Guest Editor(s) of a given issue of Real Estate Management and Valuation.

Manuscripts shall not be discussed with its authors either during the review process or at any time previous to its actual publication.

Each review shall be delivered before the deadline as it is emphasized in the call for papers prepared for a given issue.

Editor(s) and Guest Editor(s) may extend the deadline or cancel the review assignment as appropriate.

Evaluation
Reviews prepared for Real Estate Management and Valuation shall include opinions and suggestions with respect to:

• Importance of the subject.
• Quality of the paper (including article structure and clarity of expression).
• Depths and strengths of arguments.
• Originality of arguments.
• Contribution to theory-building and the body of knowledge in real estate’s studies.

The review must be in writing and should contain clear statement as to whether the article should be published, rejected or revised before resubmission.

Every referee is asked to organize the review report with an introductory paragraph summarizing the major findings of the article, emphasizing general impression of the paper, and highlighting the major shortcomings. Recommendation with respect to a given contribution shall be further summarized in the chosen category:

• Accept as it stands.
• Accept, subject to minor or major revision.
• Reject, manuscripts rejected.

In each case the referee is given a chance to further address recommendation to the editor of the issue as well as questions to the contributor. The latter applies to the situation when the referee thinks that a revised version can substantially improve to deserve publication. Since the review will also be sent to the contributor(s), referees are asked to keep it formal and clear.

The names of the Reviewers of a particular volume or publication are confidential.