Peer Review

LO-RES was established in order to stage a collegial conversation on architecture as an object of research and a field for action. A non-blind peer review process is one way of staging and documenting that conversation. LO-RES’ peer review takes the form of a stilted dialogue, serious chat muffled by a time-delay, an exchange of subjective viewpoints that adds a secondary layer to existing texts.

Our peer review process comprises of the following steps:

- When submitting, authors will be asked whether they feel that peer review comments would be useful, and also whether they are prepared to comment on another paper (both are optional).

- The editorial team meets within a month of the final submission date, and makes a decision on whether any structural editing is required on any of the texts. In such cases, peer review comments (if the author has requested them) are prepared by the editorial team.

- At that meeting, the texts are set in “brackets” pursuant to the specific editorial strategy for that issue – this then forms both the order that the texts are to appear in the magazine, and the underlying basis for the distribution of texts for peer review.

- Texts are sent to one or more respondents (generally within their bracket). Reviewers have 2 weeks to prepare comments. Comments are to be written directly into the document, using the “new comment” function or similar. Reviewers are invited to give comments in order to:

o Deepen the argument by recommending additional, related bibliographic references (additional references are also to be listed in the bibliography and are to be highlighted, for instance through use of the “track changes” function or similar).

o Further contextualize the argument by offering further precedents, case studies or examples from practice.

o Offer a counter-argument in relation to a particular position or contention.

o Express support in relation to a particular contention or position.

- The text and comments are then returned to the author, who can (i) make revisions to their text in response to comments (revisions are to be highlighted, for instance through use of the “track changes” function or similar); (ii) delete any comments they choose; and/or (iii) respond to comments in cases where this is felt necessary (responses are to be clearly numbered and included in a separate section at the end of the document; this possibility should only be taken up where a second comment might advance the discussion, and not only to have “the last word.”) The author is expected to return their final text to the editorial team within 2 weeks.

- The editorial team can at this point revise any comments or responses, and even reject changes to the original text as they see fit (authors will be notified in such cases and will always be asked to approve the final text before it goes to print).

- All material (including review comments) is professionally copyedited before going to print.


We encourage feedback on the above from all authors on the usefulness and relevance of the peer review process, which is subject to constant revision and refinement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>