All manuscripts submitted to Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Administratio Locorum are evaluated in accordance with the Journal’s aims and scope, author guidelines, publication ethics policies, and peer-review procedures.

Editorial decisions are based exclusively on the manuscript’s scholarly merit, relevance, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, clarity, and potential contribution to the development of knowledge and practice. Decisions are made without discrimination on the grounds of the Authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, ethnicity, gender, religion, political beliefs, or other personal characteristics.

Submission of a manuscript does not guarantee that it will be sent for external peer review or accepted for publication.

1. PRELIMINARY FORMAL AND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

Before substantive editorial evaluation, each submission is checked for compliance with the Journal’s formal and technical requirements.

The manuscript should:

• be submitted in English;
• fall within the aims and scope of the Journal;
• comply with the current Editorial Guidelines;
• be prepared for double-blind peer review and contain no information that could reveal the Authors’ identity;
• include the required declarations and statements concerning originality, authorship, conflicts of interest, funding, research ethics, data availability, and the use or non-use of AI-based tools.

Submissions that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the corresponding Author for correction before editorial assessment.

Repeated failure to correct formal deficiencies, failure to provide required documentation, or failure to respond to editorial correspondence within the specified period may result in the closure of the submission or rejection of the manuscript.

2. CRITERIA FOR QUALIFICATION FOR EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW

A manuscript may be forwarded for external peer review when the Editors determine that it meets the following criteria.

2.1. Relevance to the Journal

The subject of the manuscript relates directly to one or more of the following areas:

• land administration and management;
• spatial planning and spatial management;
• spatial economics;
• socio-economic geography;
• local and regional development;
• urban and rural studies;
• landscape studies;
• protection of historical buildings and cultural heritage;
• real estate markets;
• transport systems;
• legal and institutional aspects of land administration;
• other interdisciplinary issues relevant to effective land administration.

The manuscript should make its connection with land administration, spatial development, territorial governance, or related policy and planning processes explicit.

2.2. Scholarly contribution and originality

The manuscript:

• addresses a clearly defined and relevant research problem;
• provides an original contribution to knowledge, methodology, theory, policy, or professional practice;
• clearly identifies the research gap or the need for the review;
• explains how the study advances existing research;
• avoids merely reproducing results, arguments, or case descriptions already available in the literature;
• has potential relevance beyond the immediate case study or provides a convincing justification for the importance of the specific local or regional context.

Priority may be given to manuscripts that:

• propose innovative concepts, methods, or solutions;
• present findings with broader international, comparative, continental, or transferable implications;
• are based on interdisciplinary or international research collaboration;
• develop, test, critically discuss, or extend concepts previously presented in the Journal;
• contribute to the implementation or critical assessment of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

These features are considered desirable indicators of the manuscript’s relevance and impact. They do not automatically exclude well-designed local, qualitative, conceptual, or exploratory studies, provided that their scholarly contribution is clearly demonstrated.

2.3. Theoretical and literature foundations

The manuscript:

• is grounded in an appropriate and clearly explained theoretical or conceptual framework;
• contains a critical and sufficiently comprehensive review of relevant literature;
• considers current international research as well as relevant regional or national studies;
• accurately represents the cited sources;
• clearly distinguishes the Authors’ findings and interpretations from previously published knowledge;
• uses appropriate, reliable, and traceable scholarly sources;
• explains the relationship between the research questions, hypotheses, theoretical assumptions, and analytical approach.

A review article should offer a systematic, critical, integrative, or otherwise methodologically justified synthesis rather than a descriptive list of publications.

2.4. Methodological quality

For empirical studies, the manuscript:

• formulates clear research objectives, questions, or hypotheses;
• applies a research design appropriate to the stated objectives;
• describes the study area, data sources, sampling, variables, instruments, procedures, and analytical methods in sufficient detail;
• provides enough information to permit evaluation and, where reasonably possible, replication of the research;
• justifies the selection of the sample, cases, study area, methods, spatial units, indicators, or analytical parameters;
• applies appropriate quantitative, qualitative, spatial, legal, laboratory, or mixed methods;
• reports validation, reliability, uncertainty, limitations, or sensitivity analyses where relevant;
• does not make causal claims that are unsupported by the research design;
• presents results in a transparent and reproducible manner.

Sample size is assessed in relation to the research design, population, methods, and intended conclusions. A smaller sample does not in itself constitute grounds for rejection when it is methodologically justified, particularly in qualitative, exploratory, specialised, or hard-to-reach population studies.

2.5. Quality of results, discussion, and conclusions

The manuscript:

• presents results clearly, logically, and without unnecessary duplication;
• ensures consistency between the text, tables, figures, maps, appendices, and underlying analyses;
• distinguishes results from their interpretation;
• discusses findings in relation to the research questions, hypotheses, theoretical framework, and previous studies;
• considers alternative explanations where appropriate;
• identifies the limitations of the study;
• avoids generalisations that exceed the scope of the data;
• presents conclusions that are directly supported by the results;
• explains the theoretical, methodological, planning, policy, educational, or practical implications of the findings;
• where relevant, provides useful evidence or guidance for local, regional, or central authorities responsible for land administration and spatial development.

2.6. Quality of presentation

The manuscript:

• is written in clear, precise, coherent, and academically appropriate English;
• has a logical structure and a consistent line of argument;
• uses terminology accurately and consistently;
• contains informative and non-redundant tables, figures, and maps;
• provides maps with the necessary cartographic elements, sources, and explanations;
• defines abbreviations, indicators, classifications, and analytical categories;
• provides references that are complete, accurate, and consistent with the Journal’s style (APA).

Language quality is assessed separately from the scholarly merits of the manuscript. Minor linguistic problems may be corrected during revision; however, the language must be sufficiently clear to permit reliable editorial and peer-review assessment.

3. GROUNDS FOR REJECTION BEFORE EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated Editor may reject a manuscript without external peer review when one or more of the following circumstances apply.

3.1. Thematic and editorial grounds

The manuscript:

• falls outside the Journal’s aims and scope;
• is directed primarily at a readership outside the Journal’s scientific and professional community;
• represents a type of content not published by the Journal;
• is excessively narrow or descriptive and does not demonstrate a broader scholarly contribution;
• does not meet the minimum level of scientific, methodological, or editorial quality required for peer review.

3.2. Insufficient originality or contribution

The manuscript:

• does not identify a significant research problem or knowledge gap;
• merely repeats well-established findings without a new theoretical, methodological, empirical, comparative, or practical contribution;
• presents only a routine application of a known method without appropriate justification, validation, innovation, or substantive interpretation;
• provides a descriptive account of a study area, project, policy, legal act, dataset, or phenomenon without a clear analytical framework;
• is based on outdated information that is not justified by the research purpose;
• substantially overlaps with another manuscript or publication by the same or different authors;
• divides one study into multiple minimally differentiated publications without sufficient scholarly justification.

3.3. Fundamental methodological deficiencies

The manuscript may be rejected when its central methodological problems cannot reasonably be corrected through revision, including where:

• the research objectives, questions, or hypotheses are unclear or inconsistent;
• the research design is unsuitable for answering the stated questions;
• the data are insufficient, unreliable, unverifiable, or inappropriate for the conclusions;
• the sample or selection of cases is seriously biased, and the problem cannot be addressed analytically;
• essential information about the data, methods, variables, instruments, or procedures is missing;
• the statistical, spatial, qualitative, legal, or laboratory analysis is fundamentally incorrect;
• the manuscript makes unsupported causal claims;
• the study lacks necessary controls, comparisons, validation, or robustness checks;
• major discrepancies exist between the methods, reported results, tables, figures, maps, and conclusions;
• the conclusions cannot be supported by the research design or evidence;
• the study cannot be meaningfully evaluated or reproduced because essential methodological information or data provenance is unavailable.

3.4. Presentation preventing scientific evaluation

The manuscript may be rejected before peer review when:

• its structure is seriously disorganised;
• the argument is incoherent or internally contradictory;
• the English is of a quality that prevents reliable assessment of the scientific content;
• tables, figures, maps, equations, or references are incomplete, illegible, misleading, or inconsistent with the text;
• extensive revision would effectively require the preparation of a new manuscript;
• the Authors repeatedly fail to correct essential technical or formal deficiencies.

4. GROUNDS FOR REJECTION FOLLOWING PEER REVIEW

Following peer review, a manuscript may be rejected when:

• the Reviewers and Editors identify fundamental scientific or methodological deficiencies;
• the evidence does not support the principal findings or conclusions;
• the contribution is assessed as insufficiently original, significant, or relevant;
• the manuscript requires changes so extensive that it would constitute a substantially new study;
• critical data, analyses, ethical approvals, permissions, or methodological documentation cannot be provided;
• the Authors do not adequately address major reviewer or editorial comments;
• the revised manuscript introduces new inconsistencies or fails to resolve the central concerns;
• the Authors refuse to make necessary corrections without providing a sound scholarly justification;
• the manuscript remains unclear, unreliable, or unsuitable for the Journal after revision;
• the Authors fail to submit a revision or respond to editorial correspondence within the specified period;
• ethical or integrity concerns arise during the review process.

Divergent recommendations from Reviewers do not automatically result in rejection. The Editor may seek an additional review or make a decision based on the substance and strength of the Reviewers’ arguments.

5. RESEARCH AND PUBLICATION ETHICS

Compliance with research and publication ethics is a condition of publication. Ethical concerns may be considered at any stage of the editorial process, including after acceptance or publication.

A manuscript may be rejected, and appropriate further action may be taken, if there is evidence or a well-founded unresolved concern relating to:

• plagiarism or substantial unattributed copying;
• self-plagiarism, redundant publication, duplicate publication, or inappropriate text recycling;
• simultaneous submission to another journal;
• fabrication, falsification, manipulation, or selective omission of research data or results;
• inappropriate creation, alteration, or manipulation of images, figures, maps, tables, or other research materials;
• citation manipulation or the inclusion of irrelevant citations intended to influence citation indicators;
• fabricated, manipulated, or compromised peer review;
• submission originating from a paper mill or another form of systematic manipulation of the publication process;
• ghost-writing, guest authorship, honorary authorship, purchased authorship, or undisclosed authorship;
• false or misleading information about Author contributions, affiliations, funding, or conflicts of interest;
• copyright infringement or the unauthorised reproduction of protected material;
• failure to obtain or document the necessary ethical approval, informed consent, institutional permission, data-access authorisation, or other legally or ethically required permission;
• research involving humans, animals, plants, cell lines, personal data, confidential information, or vulnerable groups that does not meet applicable ethical and legal requirements;
• undisclosed or inappropriate use of AI-based tools;
• the use of AI-based tools to fabricate or modify research data, images, figures, tables, results, citations, or scholarly content;
• the inclusion of confidential, personal, unpublished, or otherwise protected materials in an AI-based system contrary to ethical, legal, or contractual obligations;
• refusal or inability to provide reasonable explanations, source materials, raw data, ethical documentation, permissions, or other evidence needed to investigate a serious concern;
• any other conduct that undermines the reliability, originality, transparency, legality, or integrity of the submitted work.

Where appropriate, the Editors may request explanations, corrections, source files, raw or processed data, ethical approvals, consent forms, authorship statements, permissions, or other supporting documentation before reaching a decision.

Suspected misconduct will be examined in accordance with the Journal’s ethical procedures and relevant Committee on Publication Ethics recommendations. Depending on the nature and severity of the concern, the Journal may reject the manuscript, suspend the editorial process, contact the Authors’ institutions or other journals, correct or retract a published article, or take other appropriate action.

6. USE OF AI-BASED TOOLS

The use of AI-based tools does not in itself constitute grounds for rejection, provided that it complies with the Journal’s AI Policy.

Authors must:

• disclose whether AI-based tools were used;
• identify the tool and version, where applicable;
• explain the purpose and scope of its use;
• verify all AI-assisted content;
• accept full responsibility for the submitted manuscript;
• protect confidential, unpublished, personal, and copyrighted information;
• ensure that AI tools have not replaced the Authors’ scholarly judgement, analysis, interpretation, or research design.

A manuscript may be rejected when AI-based tools have been used in an undisclosed, inappropriate, misleading, unsafe, or ethically questionable manner, particularly to:

• generate scholarly content without expert verification;
• fabricate or modify research data, results, citations, tables, figures, maps, or images;
• replace the Authors’ scientific analysis or interpretation;
• conceal plagiarism or other misconduct;
• compromise confidentiality, data protection, intellectual property rights, or the integrity of peer review.

The Editorial Board retains the right to assess the appropriateness of AI use in the context of each manuscript.

7. REVISION, ACCEPTANCE, AND FINAL DECISION

A manuscript may be accepted only when:

• it falls within the aims and scope of the Journal;
• it presents a sufficiently original, relevant, and reliable scholarly contribution;
• its research design, methods, analyses, and conclusions are scientifically sound;
• the Authors have satisfactorily addressed the Reviewers’ and Editors’ comments;
• all required ethical, authorship, funding, conflict-of-interest, data, and AI declarations have been provided;
• all necessary permissions, approvals, and supporting documents have been submitted;
• the manuscript meets the Journal’s linguistic, technical, and editorial requirements.

Acceptance may be conditional upon minor scientific, linguistic, technical, or editorial corrections.

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised Editor. The Editors may consult members of the Editorial Board, Reviewers, statistical or methodological experts, ethics advisers, or other specialists where necessary.

The Journal reserves the right to reconsider an editorial decision if new information concerning the scientific reliability, originality, authorship, ethical compliance, legality, or integrity of the manuscript becomes available before publication.

Editorial decisions are based on an overall assessment of the manuscript. Meeting individual criteria does not create an entitlement to publication.