Publication Ethics

The Canadian Journal of Architecture (CJA) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and to acting against publication malpractice in all its forms. The journal’s procedures follow the principles and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

This statement applies to everyone involved in publishing with the journal: editors, reviewers, authors and the publisher, Northline Academic Publishing Services Inc.

1. Editorial Responsibilities

Editorial decisions are based solely on the scholarly merit, originality, clarity and relevance of the work submitted. They are made without regard to the authors’ nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, institutional affiliation, career stage or ability to pay, and they are independent of any commercial interest.

Editors undertake to:

•      Assess every manuscript against a single, consistently applied standard.

•      Treat all submitted material as confidential and not disclose it to anyone other than the reviewers and, where necessary, the publisher.

•      Not use unpublished material from a submitted manuscript in their own research without the authors’ written consent.

•      Recuse themselves from handling any manuscript in which they have a competing interest, and arrange for it to be handled by another member of the editorial board.

•      Give reasons for a decision to decline, and where a manuscript addresses an important problem but falls short of publishable form, say specifically what would need to change.

•      Take responsive action when an ethical concern is raised about a submitted or published article, regardless of when it comes to light.

2. Peer Review

The journal operates double-anonymous peer review: neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identity. Every submission is first assessed by an editor for scope, compliance with the Author Guidelines and adherence to the journal’s policy on generative artificial intelligence. Manuscripts that pass this assessment are sent to at least two independent reviewers.

Editorial decisions are accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or decline. Reviewers advise; the editor decides.

Reviewers are expected to:

•      Assess the manuscript objectively and support their judgements with specific reasoning rather than personal criticism of the authors.

•      Treat the manuscript as a confidential document, not share it with others, and not retain or use it for any purpose after review.

•      Declare any competing interest, and decline the invitation where one exists.

•      Decline promptly if they lack the relevant expertise or cannot review within the agreed period.

•      Draw the editor’s attention to any substantial overlap with previously published work, or to any concern about the ethical conduct of the research.

3. Authorship and Contribution

Authorship is limited to those who have made a substantive contribution to the work, meaning contribution to at least one of: conception or design of the research; acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data, drawings or fieldwork; or drafting or critically revising the manuscript.

All authors must have approved the version submitted and must accept responsibility for it. Guest, honorary and ghost authorship are prohibited.

Contributors who do not meet these criteria — including structural, thermal, daylight and energy simulation work, parametric and generative form-finding, statistical analysis, photogrammetry and point-cloud processing, and machine-learning methods carried out on the authors’ behalf — must be acknowledged rather than listed as authors.

Any change to the authorship of a submitted manuscript requires the written agreement of all authors, including the person being added or removed, and must be explained to the editor.

4. Originality, Plagiarism and Similarity Screening

Manuscripts must be original, must not have been published previously, and must not be under consideration at another journal. Posting a preprint on a recognised repository is permitted and does not count as prior publication; the preprint and its DOI must be disclosed on submission.

All submissions are screened for textual similarity using Turnitin before review, and may be screened again before publication.

The journal does not apply a fixed similarity percentage. A report is a starting point for editorial judgement, not a verdict: a high figure produced by correctly quoted and cited methodological language is not misconduct, and a low figure that conceals an unattributed paragraph of another author’s argument is. Every flagged overlap is examined in context by an editor.

Self-plagiarism — the reuse of an author’s own previously published text, drawings or data without citation — is treated in the same way as any other undisclosed reuse.

Reproduction of drawings, photographs, maps or archival material without permission from the rights holder is the responsibility of the author and may result in the manuscript being declined or, after publication, corrected.

5. Generative Artificial Intelligence

The use of generative artificial intelligence in the preparation of submissions to this journal is prohibited. This prohibition is absolute and admits no exceptions, including for language editing. Manuscripts prepared with such tools will not be accepted. The full policy, including the specific uses it covers, is set out in the Author Guidelines.

Generative AI tools may not be listed as authors and may not be credited as contributors. On submission, the corresponding author confirms on behalf of all authors that no generative artificial intelligence was used.

Where the editors have reason to believe this policy has been breached, the manuscript will be declined without review. Where a breach is identified after publication, the article will be retracted and the authors’ institutions will be notified.

This policy concerns the preparation of manuscripts. It does not restrict the established computational methods that may form part of the research itself, which are within the scope of the journal as objects of study and as instruments of analysis, and which must be described in the methods section in the normal way.

6. Data Integrity and Availability

Authors must ensure the accuracy and integrity of everything they submit. Fabrication, falsification and the selective manipulation of data, images or drawings are serious misconduct.

Where conclusions rest on datasets, survey instruments, simulation models, material test results or measured drawing sets, authors must deposit these in a recognised repository where possible, or explain in the manuscript why this is not possible — for reasons of participant confidentiality, cultural sensitivity or third-party rights.

Authors may be asked to provide underlying data or original image files for editorial review, and are expected to retain them for a reasonable period after publication.

7. Research Ethics and Human Participants

Where research involves human participants — including interviews, household surveys, and occupant or resident studies in housing and settlement research — authors must state that ethical approval was obtained, naming the approving body and the reference number, or explain why formal approval was not required in their jurisdiction. Authors must also describe how consent was obtained and how participant identities and locations are protected.

Where research concerns sites of cultural or Indigenous significance, authors must describe the consultation and permissions that took place before the fieldwork.

8. Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose any financial or professional relationship that a reasonable reader might consider a competing interest, including involvement with a building, practice or product discussed in the manuscript. Funding sources must be named.

Reviewers must decline to review where they have a competing interest. Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have one.

All declared interests are stated in the published article.

9. Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern

The published version of record is not altered silently. Where a change is required, the journal issues one of the following, each permanently linked to the original article, which itself remains available:

•      Correction — for errors that do not affect the findings or conclusions. The corrected article is clearly labelled and the correction notice states what was changed.

•      Retraction — for findings that are unreliable, whether through misconduct or honest error; for plagiarism; for duplicate publication; for a breach of the journal’s policy on generative artificial intelligence; or for unethical research. The retraction notice states the reason and who requested it. The original article remains online, watermarked as retracted.

•      Expression of Concern — where a serious concern exists but an investigation is unresolved or inconclusive. It is replaced by a correction or retraction once the matter is settled.

Retraction notices remain permanently available and are not removed.

10. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by writing to editor@canadianja.ca within thirty days of the decision, setting out specific grounds — a factual error in the review, a reviewer’s misunderstanding of the method, or evidence that the decision did not follow the journal’s stated procedure. Disagreement with a reviewer’s judgement is not in itself grounds for appeal.

Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief. Where the appeal concerns a manuscript the Editor-in-Chief handled personally, it is referred to an independent member of the editorial board. Authors are given a reasoned reply. The outcome of an appeal is final.

11. Complaints

Complaints about the conduct of the journal — including complaints about the Editor-in-Chief, about the handling of a submission, or about the conduct of peer review — are handled independently of the person complained about.

Complaints should be addressed to:

Dr Eman Ismail M. Saeed

eman.saeed@asu.edu.bh

Complaints are acknowledged within ten working days and a substantive reply given within thirty. Where a complaint is upheld, the journal states what it will do differently.

12. Research Misconduct

Allegations of misconduct — whether concerning a submitted manuscript or a published article, and whether raised by a reviewer, a reader or an institution — are investigated following COPE guidance, regardless of how long after publication they are made.

The authors are given the opportunity to respond before any conclusion is reached. Where an allegation is substantiated, the journal may decline the manuscript, issue a correction or retraction, and notify the authors’ institution. Where an allegation is not substantiated, the journal says so to everyone who was informed of it.

13. Post-Publication Discussion

Substantive criticism of a published article is welcome and may be submitted to the journal. Correspondence that raises a serious methodological or factual concern is sent to the original authors for response, and both may be published.