Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

HAUS is dedicated to innovative research in the field of architecture and urbanism by providing a platform for high-quality, peer-reviewed research in architecture, urban studies, and interdisciplinary domains.

The journal welcomes contributions that address Architectural and Urbanism Research in the following areas:

  1. Design and Theory: Theoretical explorations and critical analyses of the built environment and design methodologies.
  2. Educational Approaches: Innovations in education theories and practices and pedagogical strategies.
  3. History and Conservation: Historical studies of architecture, preservation, and conservation of heritage.
  4. Sustainability: Research on sustainable design principles and practices, economic, social, and environmental sustainability, and green building technologies.
  5. Social and Cultural Aspects: Research in society and culture in relation to the built environment. Environmental Behavioral studies
  6. Technology: Advances in digital tools, construction, technologies, material science, and their applications.

HAUS encourages interdisciplinary research that bridges architecture and urbanism with other fields. welcomes research that reflects the unique challenges, opportunities, and cultural variations and nuances across the globe. Submissions should contribute to the advancement of knowledge, propose new frameworks, or offer critical insights into existing practices.

By fostering scholarly discourse, HAUS aims to inspire researchers, educators, and architects to push the boundaries of the discipline and address the challenges of the built environment in the 21st century.

This publication follows a quarterly schedule, with new issues published every three months. In addition to regular issues, HAUS aims to publish special issues dedicated to emergent and critical topics in the built environment. Guest editors will curate these special issues.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

HAUS maintains the highest standards of academic excellence and rigor. The journal employs a double-blind peer review process; all submissions are evaluated on academic merit, originality, and contribution to the field.

Reviewers are expected to:

  1. Maintain confidentiality – Do not discuss the manuscript with others.
  2. Ensure objectivity – Base evaluations on academic merit, without bias toward authors’ identity or affiliation.
  3. Provide constructive feedback – Aim to improve the manuscript with clear and actionable suggestions.
  4. Adhere to timelines – Complete reviews within the stipulated deadline. If delays occur, notify the editorial team promptly.
  5. Declare conflicts of interest – If you recognize the work or have a potential conflict, inform the editors immediately.

When reviewing a manuscript, assess the following key aspects:

A. Significance & Originality

• Does the research address an important question in architecture or urban studies?

• Does it contribute new knowledge, frameworks, or perspectives?

• Is the topic relevant to the journal’s scope and readership?

B. Title & Abstract

• Does the title clearly and accurately reflect the content of the paper?

• Is the abstract concise and informative, summarizing key research questions, methods, findings, and conclusions?

C. Research Methodology & Rigor

• Are the research questions/hypotheses clearly defined?

• Is the methodology appropriate and well-justified?

• For quantitative studies: Are data collection, sampling, and statistical methods robust?

• For qualitative studies: Are data sources, analytical frameworks, and interpretations rigorous?

• Are ethical considerations (e.g., consent, data privacy) properly addressed?

D. Analysis & Results

• Are the results presented clearly, accurately, and in an organized manner?

• Are figures, tables, and illustrations relevant and well-integrated?

• Are statistical analyses appropriate and assumptions met?

E. Discussion & Contextualization

• Does the discussion relate findings to existing literature?

• Are theoretical and practical implications well-articulated?

• Are study limitations acknowledged, and future research directions proposed?

F. Language & Clarity

• Is the manuscript well-structured and easy to follow?

• Is the writing clear, concise, and grammatically sound?

• Are technical terms and concepts well explained?

G. References & Citation Accuracy

• Are key studies and recent literature appropriately cited?

• Are references correctly formatted and complete?

• Does the paper acknowledge prior research without excessive self-citation?

Based on the evaluation, you will recommend one of the following decisions:

• Accept Submission— The manuscript is publishable with minor or no revisions.

• Revisions Required— The manuscript requires minor adjustments but is fundamentally sound.

• Resubmit for Review— The manuscript has potential but needs significant reworking.

• Decline Submission— The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or research contribution.

Ethical Considerations

• Plagiarism & Redundant Publication: If you suspect plagiarism, notify the editors immediately.

• Bias & Fairness: Ensure reviews are objective and free of personal or institutional biases.

• Data Integrity: If data inconsistencies arise, highlight them in your review.

• Confidentiality: Do not share or use manuscript content for personal research.

If you have concerns that should not be shared with the author (e.g., ethical issues, potential conflicts), include them in the confidential comments to editors' section.

 

Publication Frequency

This journal is published 2 times per year.

Each one volume per year has two issues, namley, one in June and one in December of each year.

Special issue could be issued separately sometime between the regular issues. This will be announced before publishing the special issue.

 

Open Access Policy

HAUS journal provides immediate open access to all content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. HAUS grants usage rights to others using the open license CC-BY-NC allowing for immediate free access to the work and permitting any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose.

 

Publishing Ethics

HAUS Statement on Publication Ethics

HAUS is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and to supporting ethical research practices. 

HAUS adheres to follow the Committee on Publication Ethics “COPE” Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. 

HAUS would like to refer reviewers to the Committee on Publication Ethics “COPE” Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

HAUS would also encourage authors to refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics "COPE" website. 

The essentials of HAUS’s publishing ethics for all groups involved in the publishing process are as follows:

 

Ethics guidelines for editors

  • The editors have to declare that by joining the editorial board there is no conflict of interest with any other institutes or journals.
  • The editors should maintain the transparency of the academic research & record, preclude professional needs from cooperating ethical standards, and always be willing to publish retractions, rectifications, and erratum when required. 
  • The editors should attempt to ensure timely peer review and publication process and should avoid unnecessary delays. 
  • The editors and other editorial board members should not be involved in editorial decisions on their own submitted work. They should be excluded from publication decisions when they are authors or even have contributed to a manuscript. 
  • The editors should give peer reviewers explicit guidance on their role and responsibilities and monitor their performances for quality and timeliness. 
  • The editor should ensure confidential handling of the submitted manuscripts and not disclose any information on submitted manuscripts before their publication.
  • The editors should assess manuscripts for their scientific quality content, in an unbiased manner and free from any decisions based on discrimination of race, gender, geographical origin, or religion of the author(s). The editor should evaluate manuscripts regarding to their academic merit free of any self-interests. 
  • Promoting research rectitude must be preserved. If at any stage the publisher suspects any kind of misconduct in research, it should be investigated promptly in detail with suitable authority; and if any suspicious act of misconduct is observed in the peer review, it should be resolved with diligence. 

Ethics guidelines for reviewers

  • Peer reviewers should provide a detailed, constructive, comprehensive, evidenced, and unbiased evaluation in a timely manner on the scientific content of the submitted work. They should judge each manuscript on its merits, without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, academic degree or institutional affiliation of the author(s). 
  • Peer reviewers should play an important role in identifying any ethical concerns or misconduct in their evaluation of submitted manuscripts; such as possible data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation, any violation of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects, unethical research, redundant or duplicate publication, conflict of interests and notify the journal editor as the possibility of such problems exists. 
  • Peer reviewers should notify the journal editor about any financial or personal conflict of interest and declining to review the manuscript when a possibility of such a conflict exists. 
  • Peer reviewers have to declare any conflict of interest with any other institutes or journals.
  • Peer reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the complete review process. 
  • Peer reviewers should indicate whether the writing is relevant, concise & clear and evaluating the originality and scientific accuracy.
  • Peer reviewers must avoid making statements in their report which might affect any person’s reputation. 
  • Peer reviewers are required to only agree to peer review manuscripts within their expertise and within a reasonable timeframe. 
  • Peer reviewers should notify the journal editor in the case of declining the review in any case. 
  • Peer reviewers are required to destroy submitted manuscripts and all related material after they have reviewed them.

Ethics guidelines for authors 

  • Authors should make publicly available all the results of their research and are accountable for the completeness and accuracy of their reports. 
  • Author(s) should warrant that the submitted manuscript is from their own original work, which does not infringe the intellectual property rights of any other person or entity, and it is free from any kind of plagiarism including their own previously published work. 
  • All authors named on the paper are equally held accountable for the content of a submitted manuscript or published paper although having different contributions. 
  • The work should not have been published elsewhere or submitted to any other journal(s) at the same time. 
  • Author(s) must clearly declare any potential conflict of interest. 
  • Author(s) must disclose all sources of funding for the research reported in the paper. 
  • If asked to provide a list of suggested reviewers, author(s) must provide the correct details for suitable reviewers with the appropriate experience to review, ensuring that the suggested reviewers do not have a conflict of interest.
  • Proper acknowledgements to other work reported (individual/company/institution) must be given. Permission must be obtained from any content used from other sources.

Post-publication discussions policy

  • HAUS accepts any comment, and critiques from the readers by sending an email to the editor-in-chief.
  • Editorial team of each journal is committed to collect all comments and criticisms related to each article and send to the author.
  • Authors are committed to response the readers within 4 weeks.

Retraction policy

Articles can be retracted in the following cases:

  • A certain plagiarism is detected.
  • It reports unethical research
  • There’s clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation)
  • The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication)
  • It contains material or data without authorization for use
  • Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy)
  • The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

Complaints and appeals policy

  • HAUS welcomes any complaints against itself as a journal, members of the editorial boards, and staff of HAUS or any journal published by APC.
  • Any complaints from any parties can be composed directly to Prof. Dr. Yasser Gaber (ygd@aast.edu) the Dean of research, and manager of Academy Publishing Centre (APC)
  • HAUS is committed to deal with any complaints or appeals seriously, and give a response within two weeks of the receipt.

Research misconduct policy

HAUS allows reporting of research misconduct a published article or a manuscript under peer-review process. The following procedures can be followed for complaints of author misconduct:

  1. The editorial board of each journal receives a complaint that an article submitted to or published in the journal is suspected of containing research misconduct.
  2. The complainant needs to indicate clearly and directly the specific manner and details of misconduct
  3. The editorial board will conduct an investigation, during which time the editor of the journal and the corresponding author(s) of the suspected article will be in contact.
  4. The corresponding author(s) will be asked to provide an interpretations and any available evidence.
  5. If the author(s) of the suspected article accepts the misconduct complaint, the editorial board will take an action depending on the status of the article:
    1. If the article has been published, retraction may be necessary to remedy the situation.
    2. If the misconduct is reported during the review process, the review process may continue, with the author(s) making the relevant changes.
    3. If there’s no response from the author (s) or an unsatisfactory explanation, the article may be permanently retracted or rejected.
  6. The complainant will be informed of the outcome once the issue is resolved. 

HAUS Advertising policy

HAUS does not accept advertising and sponsorship for its website and social media accounts.

AI tools as author

HAUS is committed to COPE, WAME and the JAMA Network declaration to state that AI tools cannot be listed as an author of a paper. AI tools cannot meet the requirements for authorship as they cannot take responsibility for the submitted work.

Authors who submitted articles for publishing in APC’s journals are committed to the following:

  1. Any article submitted to HAUS that includes ChatGPT or any other AI tools as a co-author will be rejected immediately.
  2. If the submitted article included a citation to a document that was authored by ChatGPT or any other AI tools as a co-author will be rejected immediately.

 

Digital Object Identifier, DOI of the HAUS

Digital Object Identifier

The HAUS is supported by Digital Object Identifier, DOI for each article from Cross Ref as listed in HERE.

The Code of the DOI of each article consists of the following format:

10.21622/HAUS.YYYY.VV.I.AAA

Where

10.21622       = Journal Identifier

RESD           = Journal name

YYYY            = Four digits for the year

VV               = Two digits for the Volume Number 

I                 = One digit for the Issue Number

AAA              = Three digits for the article ID

To look for the paper on line, search for this link

https://dx.doi.org/10.21622/HAUS.YYYY.VV.I.AAA

  

To look for the paper on line, search for this link

https://dx.doi.org/10.21622/HAUS.YYYY.VV.I.AAA

 

Articles Publishing Charges (APCs)

The journal is diamond open access and has no APCs.