Focus and Scope
Global Cities Research is an online journal that highlights urban issues and strives to promote academic debate on sustainable urban development in social, cultural, economic and environmental dimensions through cross-disciplinary collaboration. It was created to advance scientific knowledge and analysis on various aspects of urban way of life using a multi-disciplinary approach that addresses historical, contemporary and future trends of urban environments.
The Journal publishes both theoretical and experimental research papers, especially focusing on detailed case studies, and welcomes insights regarding cities development in various locations around the globe. Given the complexity of such phenomena as city and urban way of life, GCR combines studies on a wide range of disciplines, including: human geography and economy, urban and transport planning, urban design and architecture, social and political relations, environmental and behavioral sciences.
We encourage submissions of well-written and relevant original research articles, practitioner and/or research notes, commentaries, and book reviews. Within our author friendly concept, we do not put much pressure on our contributors to present "novel" or "breaking-through" results. As long as the methodology used is sound, we believe that reporting the findings will be useful. Nevertheless, all papers submitted to the Journal are first appraised by the Editors and, if suitable, reviewed by independent anonymous experts in the proper area.
Section Policies
Articles
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Peer Review Process
The peer review process reflects the commitment to the principles of editorial independence, free of conflicts of interest and/or any kind of unprofessional or political influence. It begins with the Editor, who reads each submitted manuscript and decides whether the topics and contents of the paper correspond to the GCR objectives. The selected manuscripts are anonymously attributed by the Editor to at least two independent reviewers. The Editor takes editorial decisions on the basis of the recommendation of the referees. Each detailed review contains a set of specific recommendations from the reviewers to determine whether the authors should be encouraged to submit the manuscript again for new round of evaluation. The Editor makes the final decision on resubmissions. Upon receipt of the resubmission, the Editor decides whether the manuscript should be returned to the review process, accepted, or declined.
Anonymization
GCR adopts a rigorous double-blind peer review process to verify the quality of published articles and ensure their scientific merit. Under this framework, the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous during and after the evaluation process: the reviewers do not know the authors' identities and the authors do not disclose the reviewers' identities. This approach mitigates possible prejudices by ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated only on the basis of academic quality and scientific merit, excluding the personal background of the authors, gender, nationality, academic status or previous publication history. Each article is subject to external peer review, and is usually evaluated by at least two experts in the area of knowledge before the final acceptance/rejection decision. To maintain the integrity of the review, the authors must anonymize their manuscripts thoroughly and accompany it by a separate title page, containing the authors’ names, affiliations, contact information, and other non-anonymized details. The third person should be used to refer to their own previous works (e.g., "As shown in Prior et al." instead of "We have shown before..."). The figures, tables and additional materials will not contain identifying information. These include acknowledgements, funding statements and conflicts of interest statements. The files names and metadata should not contain authors’ information as well. Only the title page and the cover letter must contain the identification details and must be submitted separately for editorial use only. All files shared with Editors must be carefully checked to avoid unauthorized disclosure of the authors’ identities.
Initial evaluation
Upon submission, the Editor will check each manuscript to ensure that it complies with the Journal's scope and format and assess its originality (iThenticate), scientific merits and basic quality standards. In general, the Editor determines whether the manuscript is appropriate for peer review. If the manuscript meets the above criteria, including methodological clarity and appropriate scientific contribution, and meets academic ethical standards, the Editor will arrange the further stages of peer review. In contrast, manuscripts that are clearly beyond the scope of the Journal, contain significant methodological defects, lack sufficient scientific justification or do not meet academic ethics can be rejected directly at this stage without sending for further peer review. This streamlined process ensures the efficiency of the review process and saves important academic resources.
Reviewers selection
Selection of reviewers is a critical step in our peer review process, in which candidates are picked up on the basis of their knowledge of the areas relevant to the manuscripts. Their published works, academic backgrounds and previous evaluation experience are taken into account. In addition to domain competencies, the reviewers must demonstrate the ability to evaluate the scientific merit, soundness of methodology and overall quality of the manuscripts in a comprehensive manner, commit to providing high quality, constructive and timely reviews, while being responsive throughout the process, and follow strict standards of professionalism, confidentiality and ethical behavior at all stages of review process. In addition, the Editorial Team carefully assesses all contributors for potential conflicts of interest, such as personal relations, direct cooperation, financial or institutional relationships with the authors. We are committed to maintaining a pool of qualified and diverse reviewers to ensure fair and impartial assessment of all submissions.
Peer reviewing
The eligible manuscripts are assigned to two or more experts with knowledge and expertise in the relevant areas. The referees will evaluate scientific merit, methodological reliability, importance, and clarity of the manuscripts and make specific recommendations for acceptance, revision, or rejection. After completion of the peer review process, all the reviews, comments and recommendations of the referees are compiled and transmitted to the Editor.
Editorial verdicts
Editor's decisions will be based on the reviewers' comments and recommendations in order to make one of the following verdicts:
Accept: The manuscript will be sent directly to the production stage without prior revision.
Revise: Revisions (minor or major) are required. The authors will be suggested to solve the problems identified and submit a revised manuscript, which will be re-evaluated. This process can be repeated if additional revisions will be necessary.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the standards or scope of the Journal. The authors will be sent a detailed decision letter, including feedback from the reviewers.
Revisions
If the Editor considers a manuscript to have a potential for publication, but further revisions would be required, the authors will be invited to submit a revised version, which must be resubmitted within the prescribed time frame. To complete this re-submission, the following documents are necessary:
- Revised version of the manuscript with the amendments based on the comments of the Editors and reviewers. To facilitate easy identification, the authors must ensure that all changes are clearly marked in the document.
- Replies to the referees must contain detailed commentary in response to each comment made by the reviewers and the Editor. When the manuscript is re-submitted, the revised version is usually re-assigned to the original reviewers.
Pre-production
After the satisfactory corrections of all revisions required, the Editor will take the final decision regarding the manuscript acceptance. Once a manuscript has been accepted for publication, the production phase begins.
Appeals and complaints
GCR aims to maintain the integrity of the editorial workflow processes and to ensure their fairness, transparency and impartiality. If the author or reader believes that a decision or editorial procedure has been treated unfairly, he or she can file an appeal or complaint. Issues relating to editorial processes or publication ethics are first dealt with by the Journal’s Editor.
Publication Frequency
GCR is published biannually on regular basis (Summer/Winter editions). Occasionally, we may arrange special issues focused on a specific topic. Editorial processes for potential supplementary issues follow the same standards as the Journal's core content.
Archiving
GCR focuses on making content discoverable and accessible through indexing services. It uses LOCKSS and CLOCKSS technologies for storage and long-term preservation to create electronic backups and to ensure long-term availability in case the Journal ceases to be published.
Guidelines for Reviewers
These guidelines are designed for both experienced and new reviewers in the assessment of articles submitted to GCR. First-time reviewers are strongly advised to read these guidelines carefully before attempting to evaluate their assigned reviews. Any questions concerning these guidelines or peer review procedures should be first addressed to the Editor.
Introduction
The Editorial board appreciates the efforts and expertise of the reviewers to maintain the quality assurance standards of the Journal. Peer review is an important element of academic publications, a filter to ensure that research is properly examined before it is published and to improve research quality through the rigorous review by the experts in the area of knowledge. It also helps to develop the academic voice of the authors through the feedback and insights from the reviewers.
Peer review procedures
All submitted manuscripts are subject to the initial check of originality and academic scope by the Editor before being peer reviewed. GCR uses a double-blind, editor-mediated and journal-facilitated peer review process. The submitted manuscripts are usually sent to at least two independent referees to receive a contrasting assessment of their quality. At the discretion of the Editor, critical reflections, book reviews and interviews may not be reviewed by external experts, but will continue to undergo a more detailed editorial review process before publishing. GCR encourages readers who are interested in becoming potential peer-reviewers to indicate this by contacting Editors directly. We welcome reviewers from any field of research related to the urban studies.
All manuscripts submitted are first read by the Editor. Only papers that appear to meet our submission quality standards will be formally examined, thereby saving the time of reviewers and authors. The main objective of the post-examination process is to provide Editors with the insight and information necessary to determine whether the proposals should be: approved for publication; revised by the authors; or declined for publication.
Where the manuscript needs to be revised, the Editor collects anonymous reviewers’ feedback recommendations and communicates them to the authors. Consequently, the reviewers should indicate how the suboptimal articles can be revised and strengthened until they are acceptable for publication; structure and clarity of advice are particularly appreciated.
We emphasize the importance of timely notification to the Editors if the review cannot be completed or if an extension is requested. We also expect peer reviewers to respond to inquiries from the Editors as soon as possible after accepting a review assignment. The peer reviewer who does not meet these expectations will be excluded from active consideration for future peer reviews.
If you are uncertain whether you are ready to accept the assigned review or if you want to suggest an alternative reviewer who is suitable, please contact the Editor to discuss it further. Review time for an article is quite time-consuming, as reading the paper and writing review comments may take a few hours to complete. Please ensure that you have sufficient time to complete a thorough review of the submission before the deadline for review indicated in the assignment invitation (usually 4 weeks). If other commitments mean that our deadline is too short, but you still want to review, please contact the Editor to discuss an extension.
Reports to the Editor
After completing the review of the article, the next step is to write the report of the Editor. GCR provides an electronic template to help reviewers complete the document, highlighting various aspects of the manuscripts under review. It is helpful to briefly summarize the conclusions of your review at the beginning of your report so that the author has an overview of your ideas and the context of your criticism. GCR encourages reviewers to make constructive and courteous intellectual criticism of the text, rather than a brutal criticism of the text or the authors. Since each submission to GCR usually has several reviewers from different disciplines, the Editor will decide whether to accept or reject a paper on the basis of sometimes contradictory advice. It is therefore advantageous to establish clear arguments in favor and against the publication, rather than a single recommendation in the text of the review. The final assessment, however, is required that at the end of the review, the referee provides a clear final assessment based on his professional experience of the steps that the Editors should take next with the submission. These are as follows:
Accept: The conducted work is of high quality and can be recommended for publication.
Revisions required: Papers might be accepted after the improvements to the text. This is the most frequently selected response.
Decline submission: For reasons outlined in your review, the paper is not suitable for publication in academic journals.
This usually marks the end of the peer review process, and GCR thanks you for your intellectual work and contributions to maintaining the professional practices and quality of the Journal.
Secondary review
When the reviewer agrees to evaluate the submission to GCR, it is considered an obligation to review the subsequent revisions if required. However, if the authors did not make sufficient efforts to address previous criticism and recommendations for improvements, the Editors would not return the revised papers to the referees.
Conflicts of interest
Conflicts of interest do not necessarily prevent you from reviewing the article, but complete disclosure to the Editors allows them to make informed decisions on whether they are satisfied that the review is continuing. Potential conflicts of interest include:
- working in the same department or institution as the author;
- working or publishing previously with the author;
- having a professional, personal, or financial relationship with the article.
GCR operates a double-blind peer review process to avoid unconscious prejudice; however, it is understood that experienced reviewers can still recognize the work of the authors according to the style. If you acknowledge these or other potential conflicts of interest in response to a review invitation, please inform the Editor in your comments so that we can consider them.
Ethical standards
The manuscripts are regarded as the intellectual property of the authors and are not distributed or published publicly prior to their acceptance. Please do not disclose to third parties the article you have been requested to review. If you want to get an opinion from a colleague on the submission, you must first consult the Editor. In order to maintain our double-blind peer review process and protect your identity, please do not include personal details (such as names, affiliations, etc.) in the text of your examination. You should not attempt to contact the authors under any circumstances. It is important to note that if you submit your review, all the recommendations you make will contribute to the final decision whether the Editor accepts the submission for publication. In general, we expect all reviewers to comply with the basic principles of peer review procedures as set out by the Committee on Publications Ethics (CoPE).
The use AI-technologies
As the use of artificial intelligence technologies increases, it poses its own challenges in the validity of manuscripts peer review. GCR is striving to improve its policy accordingly. We will continue to update policies to support our reviewers, authors and readers. The quality of peer review is our first priority. Reviewers should avoid using AI-technologies or other related services to generate review reports that may jeopardize the integrity and confidentiality of the reports.Code of Integrity
Global Cities Research publishes peer-reviewed research articles that maintain the highest integrity and ethics standards. The statement sets out the principles that all research articles published in the Journal should comply with and serves to provide useful guidelines for authors, peer reviewers, Editors, and anyone seeking advice on research misconduct.
GCR is intolerant to the cases of academic misconduct, including plagiarism, double publications, falsifications, and data manipulations. Therefore, prior to publication, all manuscripts are thoroughly investigated in terms of ethical behavior and we take all measures to combat possible abuses. The following guidelines are based on Elsevier's Publishing Ethics Resource Kit and Committee on Publication Ethics (CoPE) Code of Conduct. If anyone discovers a research misconduct that may invalidate our principles, they should inform the Editors via e-mail immediately.
Editors’ responsibilities
To ensure impartial, independent and confidential publishing processes, the Editors take responsibility for establishing peer review procedures that minimize prejudice and ensure that no conflicts of interest or any other corporate or political influence can impede the review outcome. The manuscripts are evaluated only on the basis of their scientific content, regardless of the identities of the authors, their host institutions, nationalities, gender, etc. Editors are expected to guarantee the anonymity of the reviewers and to ensure the confidentiality of materials supplied. They are obliged to take all necessary measures to ensure that unpublished articles are treated as confidential documents by all persons involved in the editorial processes. The Editors shall not disclose any information about the manuscripts to any person other than the corresponding authors and the reviewers, except in cases of misconduct investigations that may disclose confidential information to third parties. The Editor in charge is ultimately responsible for accepting or rejecting the submitted manuscripts. However, individual decisions can be delegated to other members of the Editorial office depending on the specific subject of publication and the expertise of the Editor. The Editors are expected to monitor the timing of the process and, to the best of their ability, ensure that publication verdicts are taken within a reasonable time frame. The Editor in charge should provide the authors with a written reason for the taken decisions regarding their submissions.
We strive to improve the integrity of research and promote honesty, transparency and excellence at all stages. If reviewers, readers or other parties are seriously concerned about the conduct, validity, or reliability of the publication, the Editor will contact the authors with the request to respond to those concerns. Once the investigation is completed, the Editorial office will publish the results of the investigation, explaining the outcomes. If an error is found in a published article, the Editor will publish a corrected version with specific marks as soon as possible to replace the original document in the Journal’s archive. Retractions are merely reserved in extreme cases where the flaws undermine the conclusions of the paper. The retracted articles will not be deleted from the Journal’s web-site, but they will appear with special marks indicating the reasons of retraction. In case of withdrawal without the authors’ unanimous consent, it must be approved by the Editorial committee. The Journal will respond to allegations of ethical violations by following its own policies and, where possible, the appropriate guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (CoPE).
Reviewers’ responsibilities
The peer review process begins with the mutual understanding that the referees will provide constructive comments on the manuscript, assisting the authors to revise it at a higher level. GCR provides guidelines for rigorous, fair and effective peer review and encourages reviewers to act in accordance with CoPE ethical guidelines. The evaluation of submissions should be rapid, thorough and objective. Personal criticism of the authors is unacceptable – the referees must clearly express their views and support them with scientific arguments. The invited referee must make constructive comments aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript. If the research reported is incomplete or has not been adequately discussed, the reviewer should explain in detail what additional analyses or discussions would clarify the submitted work. Reviewers who think they are not qualified enough to review the research reported in the manuscript or recognize conflicts of interest have to inform the Editor and withdraw from the review process. It is expected that reviewers take the matters of academic misconduct seriously and will report any found breaches of confidentiality, non-declaration of conflicts of interest (both financial or non-financial), inappropriate use of confidential materials, etc.
Referees should identify the missing references to the previous works and request them to be properly cited in the manuscripts. In addition, credits for important contributions from non-authors must be properly recognized. Authors must make every effort to ensure that their citations of previously published works are complete at the time of submission and can add citations to published works during the review process. Reviewers should treat unpublished articles as confidential and should refrain from using privileged information or ideas obtained from peer reviews for the benefit of themselves or other parties. They can be allowed to involve additional persons in the review process (e.g. students, early career researchers), but they must include their names in order to associate the manuscript with our records and acknowledge their efforts appropriately. In any case, the Editors must be informed about third parties involvement.
Authors' responsibilities
GCR aims to attract original research that contributes essentially to the field of knowledge. The manuscripts must present the original work of the listed authors. The authors guarantee that the submitted manuscripts have not previously been published in part or in full, in any language, are not in press and/or are not simultaneously submitted elsewhere. Any manuscripts with an unacceptable amount of non-original material can be rejected at the discretion of the Editors. If the authors choose to submit their manuscript elsewhere before the final verdict on acceptance for publication in Global Cities Research, they must first withdraw it from the Journal. The authors must inform the Editor if the manuscript is being considered, currently processed, posted to the pre-print servers or published elsewhere. Although the availability of manuscripts on public pre-print servers does not constitute prior publishing, the authors should indicate any posting to the pre-print servers when submitting. Moreover, GCR encourages authors to publish their research on reputable early version servers before submission to the Journal. This will not influence the Editors' assessment of the novelty of the proposed manuscripts.
Any form of plagiarism is unacceptable and is considered to be a serious breach of professional conduct and could have severe ethical and legal consequences. We reserve the right to verify all submissions through appropriate plagiarism checks. Submissions containing suspected plagiarism will be rejected in whole or in part. We expect reviewers and readers to raise any suspicions of plagiarism by contacting the Editorial office. At the same time, we are trying to cope with the misuse of self-plagiarism, which concerns the somewhat vague concept of copying one's own work. Although this is a subject of ongoing debate, we expect the authors to limit reproduction of their previously published figures, tables and text materials to the minimum and to appropriately refer to previous publications. In order to reproduce their own figures, tables, etc. from other publications, the authors must prove that they have met the license requirements of the copyright owners. In cases when manuscripts contain previously published materials of other parties, such as figures or large quantities of text, written permission from the copyright owners or publishers for reproduction must be obtained. It is expected that the copies of all reproduction permissions will be attached along with the submission. The authors must always fully cite the original works in their manuscripts.
The authors keep responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of any part of their work. The papers should contain sufficient details and references so that others could replicate the work. All persons who have made significant contributions should have been offered the opportunity to be listed as authors. By submitting a manuscript, the authors declare that all of them made a significant contribution to the concept, design, execution or interpretation of the research. The corresponding author certifies that all authors have seen and approved the list and the order of authors. After submission any changes to the list of authors, including deletion and/or re-ordering, must be approved by the Editor. Those contributors who are not approved to be represented in the authors list may be included in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors should, if appropriate, reveal the source of publicly available data and materials, such as public storages or commercial manufacturers. Authors can attach their own data and materials to relevant public databases or digital storage sites. All datasets must be made available to Editors and reviewers in their peer-review process and must be made publicly available before publication. The authors are obliged to preserve their datasets for at least three years from the publication date. All authors must disclose financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might affect the results or interpretations of their manuscripts. All sources of financial support to the projects must be acknowledged. In case if authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in submitted and/or published manuscripts, they must contact the Editor immediately and cooperate in order to avoid fundamental errors in published works and facilitate correcting the document.
AI-assisted Technologies
Artificial Intelligence is increasingly being used in various fields, including scientific research and publications. When authors use Artificial Intelligence and AI-assisted technologies in writing processes, they should only use them to improve readability of the texts and language clarity. Application of this kind of technologies must be monitored and controlled by humans, and authors must carefully review and edit the results, because AI can often generate statements that are wrong, incomplete or biased.
We admit that these tools can be helpful with grammar correction, sentence simplification, language polishing, or code structure support. At the same time, Artificial Intelligence and AI-assisted technologies should not be listed as author and/or co-author. Only human beings are completely responsible for the content of manuscripts and any submitted materials. It is unacceptable to use AI-assisted technologies to produce fundamental scientific content (e.g., data interpretation, scientific arguments, conclusions). Aiming to ensure reliability of scientific results described in the submitted manuscripts, the Editors can use the specific tools, like: Turnitin AI Writing Detection, Copyleaks, Originality.AI, etc. Editors also reserve the right to request clarifications or revisions, as well as to reject the manuscript in accordance with our editorial policy, if there will be suspicion of excessive or unidentified AI-tools use. For more information, please refer to the CoPE’s statement on authorship and AI tools.
According to our policy, authors must disclose whether they used artificial intelligence or AI-assisted technologies (e.g., ChatGPT, Copilot, etc.) in order to compose their manuscripts along with their submissions. If any AI-tool was used, the authors are required to include an explanation, directly indicating which tool was used and for what purposes (for instance: language editing, literature summary, data analysis). Authors must clearly describe how they used such technologies in the accompanying text and, if applicable, in the relevant section of the submitted manuscript. In case, if AI-tools were used for data collection, analysis and/or graphical generation, the authors must describe this information it in the Methodology section. The authors will be required to include a statement describing the use of Artificial Intelligence and AI-assisted technologies. This statement will be included in the finally published works.
Example of an acceptable statement regarding AI-tools utilization: “ChatGPT was used to improve manuscript clarity and grammar. The authors reviewed and approved all changes.”
Conflicts of Interest
GCR requires to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence peer review process or quality of publications.
The authors must disclose any direct or indirect conflicts of interest during submission. This disclosure should include all relevant conflicts of interest concerning the research and manuscript preparation. It is aimed at ensuring transparency and allowing readers to independently assess potential biases. It is crucial to recognize that disclosure of financial relationships with research sponsors and consultants is not necessarily inappropriate.
Reviewers play an essential role in ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated unbiasedly. They are responsible for reviewing all conflicts of interest disclosed by authors and should also report to the Editor their own personal relationships that could affect their impartiality. These may include personal relationships with the authors, continuous competitive research on the same topic, or associations with the subject of the manuscript, either professional and financial. When a real or suspected conflict of interest arises, the decision whether to proceed with the review will be handled by the Editor.
Members of the Editorial committee must also disclose any potential conflicts of interest. In the event of conflict of interest, they must withdraw from participation in peer review processes. If a member of the Editorial board submits a manuscript, it must be clearly stated along with the submission. If such an author has a conflict of interest, another member of the Editorial committee will be appointed to supervise the peer review process. These manuscripts are subject to strict review standards similar to those described in the Peer Review Process section.