Policy

Conflict of Interest

A Conflict of Interest exists if a person or institution has a direct personal or financial relationship which has the potential to compromise or in any way interfere with professional objectivity or judgment in issues related to the research objectives in any form. The Conflict of Interest is actual if a relationship exists, or apparent if the possibility for a relationship could be inferred. In either case, it is the responsibility of the journal editors, authors, and reviewers to declare Conflicts of Interest, actual or apparent, so that an appropriate restrictive action is taken. If no conflicts exist, the authors should state: “The authors declare no conflicts of interest.”

The authors have the obligation to reveal any personal interest, financial benefit, or relationship that has the potential to be affected by the publication of the submitted manuscript. Sources of funding must be acknowledged in the manuscript. All authors must disclose any financial or personal relationships with other people or organisations that could inappropriately influence their work.

All funding sources must be acknowledged (grant numbers and agency names), including the role of the funder in the study design or data collection. If the funder had no involvement in the research process or publication decision, this must be stated.

A reviewer is entrusted to provide an unbiased assessment of the scientific merit of a manuscript under review. Any situation or relationship that could bias or be construed to bias this assessment must be reported to the editors. These include personal relations to the authors, concurrent competitive research on the same subject in the manuscript, or professional or financial ties to an organisation with interests in the subject under review. In such cases where an actual or apparent Conflict of Interest is disclosed, the use of a review provided or requested is at the discretion of the editors.

PUBLISHING ETHICS

All authors must adhere to the Declaration of Compliance with Publishing Ethics in the ALFA journal (Architecture Papers of the Faculty of Architecture and Design STU), which has been prepared in accordance with the Elsevier’s Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK) (Publishing Ethics Resource Kit for editors), Ethics in Research and Publication (Policies & guidelines), and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct (Guidance).

Submission of an article implies that the work includes the author’s own contribution, that it has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and that, if accepted, it will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the publisher. Failure to comply with this may result in the paper being desk-rejected by the journal’s Editorial Office.

Authors are required to publish only authentic information. Text recycling (self-plagiarism) is discouraged. All articles published in the journal are subject to unconditional compliance with international copyright laws and established rules of moral and ethical principles of publishing, which exclude any forms of plagiarism. Any overlap with previous work must be properly cited and justified. The journal employs the Similarity Check System plagiarism checker.

Authors are responsible and accountable for the contents of their submissions, including accuracy, comprehensiveness, and impartiality, verifying the sources, edits, and adaptation of all material used, no matter the tools used. Any tools or sources used must be made clear and transparent to readers, and this information should be provided upon submission. Manuscripts should be prepared with respect to data privacy, intellectual property and other rights by checking the terms and conditions of all tools used.

Authorship is limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. The authorship cannot be changed after the paper acceptance. It is important that authors carefully consider the author list and order, and provide a definitive list at submission. All corresponding authors are required to provide their ORCID iD during submission to ensure proper attribution. The corresponding author must provide the reason for the modification request to the journal editor with written confirmation from all authors, including any authors being added or removed, that they agree with the changes. No changes to the author list (additions or deletions) are permitted after the manuscript has been accepted. The review process may be paused while a change in authorship request is being considered.

The authors must indicate the source of financial support for the research (number and title of the grant, and name of the grant agency). When publishing scientific papers in English, the STU authors must indicate affiliation to the faculty under the RECTOR’s DIRECTIVE No. 1/2016-SR on the Unified listing of the addresses of the Slovak University of Technology workplaces.

If the study required ethical approval (when involving human participants or animals), the authors must provide a statement confirming that the study was approved by an Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) and list the protocol code, for example: “The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of NAME OF INSTITUTE (protocol code XXX and date of approval).” or “The animal study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of NAME OF INSTITUTE (protocol code XXX and date of approval).”

All research articles presenting a study involving human participants should contain this statement: “Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.” or “Participant’s consent was waived due to REASON (please provide a detailed justification).” Written informed consent for publication must be obtained from participants who can be identified (including by the participants themselves). Please state “Written informed consent has been obtained from the participant(s) to publish this paper.” If not applicable, please state “Not applicable”.

Authors should ensure their work uses inclusive language and contains nothing which might imply one individual is superior to another on the grounds of age, gender, race, ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, disability or health condition. Inclusive language acknowledges diversity, conveys respect to all people, is sensitive to differences, and promotes equal opportunities. We recommend avoiding the use of descriptors about personal attributes unless they are relevant and valid. Write for gender neutrality with the use of plural nouns (such as “clients”) as the default. Wherever possible, avoid using “he, she,” or “he/she.” No assumptions should be made about the beliefs of readers, and writing should be free from bias, stereotypes, slang, and reference to a dominant culture and/or cultural assumptions.

Intellectual Property

For all articles published in this journal, copyright is retained by the authors, unless stated otherwise in older publications (for example, CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Since 2023, articles have been licensed under an open-access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. These conditions allow for maximum use and exposure of the work, while ensuring that the authors receive proper credit.

In exceptional circumstances, articles may be licensed differently. If authors have specific conditions (for example, linked to funding) that do not allow for this licence to be used, it should be mentioned to the journal’s Editorial Office at the submission stage. Exceptions are granted at the publisher’s discretion.

For previously published content, prior to submission, authors shall obtain permission to reproduce any published material (figures, tables, text, etc.) that does not fall into the public domain or on which they do not hold the copyright.

Permission is required for authors’ own work that has been published by another publisher and on which they did not retain copyright, for substantial extracts from the work of another author, for tables, graphs, charts, schemes, and artworks if they are unaltered or slightly modified, and for photographs on which the authors do not hold copyright.

Permission is not required for a reconstruction of an author’s own table with data that have already been published elsewhere (however, the data sources must be cited properly, e.g. “Data from…” or “Adapted from…”); short quotes, graphs, charts, schemes, and artwork that are completely redrawn by the authors and significantly changed beyond recognition do not require permission (however, authors need to check the copyright permissions of any underlying data).

The copyright holder may give authors instructions for the form of acknowledgement, in case they provide you with their permission. We recommend using the following statement: “Reproduced with permission from [author], [book/journal title]; published by [publisher], [year]”.

Authors are recommended to provide CRediT Author Statement defining both the author and the contributor using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT). For all multi-authored papers, a CRediT statement must be provided using the following roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data Curation, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing, Visualisation, Supervision, Project Administration, Funding Acquisition. The information may be specified in the Editorial Manager (from 7 April 2026), when submitting the manuscript and/or directly in the article template. This statement will be placed above the acknowledgement section of the published paper.

Use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies (since issue 1/2024)

This paragraph concerns using generative AI, which is a type of artificial intelligence technology that can produce various types of content, including text, imagery, audio, and synthetic data. Examples include ChatGPT, DALL-E, etc. AI tools and technology must be used responsibly and transparently. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the work.

Authors must not list or cite AI tools as an author or co-author of the manuscript since authorship implies responsibilities and tasks that can only be attributed to and performed by humans. The use of AI tools in the manuscript preparation process must be declared by adding a statement at the end of the manuscript when the paper is first submitted. The statement will appear in the published work and should be placed in a new section before the references list, see an example in the submission template. If authors have nothing to disclose, they do not need to add the statement.

A submitted manuscript is treated as a confidential document. Editors are not allowed to upload any part of it into a generative AI tool, as this may violate the authors’ rights. The confidentiality extends to all communication about the manuscript, including any notification or decision letters. For this reason, editors are not allowed to upload their letters into an AI tool, not even for improving language and readability.

Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies are not allowed to be used by editors to assist in the evaluation or decision-making process of a manuscript. The editors are fully responsible and accountable for the editorial process, the final decision, and the communication thereof to the authors.

Copywriting (creating, drafting, or writing) any part of a submission using generative AI tools and technology to generate new material is not permitted. Authors are allowed to use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process before submission solely to improve the language and readability of their paper and with the appropriate disclosure. Editors can find the disclosure at the bottom of the paper in a separate section before the list of references. Suspicions of violating the policy may be reported to all relevant parties.

Reviewers conducting peer reviews for Architecture Papers of the Faculty of Architecture and Design STU may not share information from an article with public artificial intelligence (AI) platforms for AI generation of text for the reviewer’s report. All reviewers conducting peer reviews are required to provide substantive feedback, writing original review comments for the author’s and editor’s consideration.

Complaints, Appeals, Ethical Oversight

The journal follows guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and Elsevier on how to address complaints, appeals, and misconduct. Such issues should be submitted to the journal’s contact e-mail. Abusive behaviour or correspondence is not tolerated. The journal may report research and publication misconduct to the relevant institutions. The journal also promptly attends to and resolves all complaints related to publishing ethics.

Ethical oversight includes especially consent to publication, publication on vulnerable populations, conduct of research using animals and human subjects, handling confidential data, business practices, multiple submissions, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like. The decision about ethical issues in publishing follows the COPE’s and Elsevier’s recommendations.

Post-publication Debate and Corrections

All corresponding authors are required to confirm in writing their approval of the final form of the made-up article to be published. Once the publications have been sent to the abstracting and indexing services, their PDF files can no longer be changed. Justified, significant post-publication corrections, amendments or errors will be addressed via a formal Erratum or Corrigendum, and published in an HTML form within a summary of the respective article.

In serious cases, articles can be retracted after publication. Possible reasons for retraction and the associated procedures are described in the COPE’s and Elsevier’s retraction guidelines. The abstract and metadata of the original article will remain, but the article content will be removed in whole with a note on the retraction (providing name and reason). In all cases, the publisher will also archive retracted or otherwise removed articles.

The journal encourages post-publication academic debate through letters to the editor or direct e-mail contacts with the authors, which are published for each journal’s issue. All critiques must be professional, reasonable, evidence-based, and must not contain libellous or defamatory content. They should provide evidence or data to support the claims. Critiques and responses may be peer-reviewed, which may take additional time to respond.

Data sharing and Reproducibility

Research data refers to the result of observations or experimentations that validate research findings and which are not already published as part of a journal article. Research data can include, but is not limited to: raw data, processed data, software, algorithms, protocols, methods, and materials. To foster transparency and reproducibility, the journal encourages and supports researchers to share research data where appropriate and at the earliest opportunity via a link to a repository. Research data is peer-reviewed, and CC BY licences apply.

---

Open access policy

Archiving

---

Peer review policy

Review of Articles

All submissions implying that the work is the author’s own contribution, have not been published previously, and are not under consideration elsewhere, are subject to a double-blind review, also known as double-anonymised review. (Before the release of issue 1/2026, single-blind or single-anonymised reviews applied to previous issues). Reviewers cannot contact the author(s) of the article that they are reviewing regarding the review process. Authors cannot be provided with any information on the reviewers that would disclose their identity.

The reviews assess content, scientific and research knowledge, originality, rigorous methods, quality and suitability of the image material, text structure and style, referencing, comprehensibility, length, keywords, and overall contribution of each article to the field and scope defined by the journal. All manuscripts should include an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions. All reviews are independent field-expert assessments. Reviewers should draw attention to relevant published articles that are not cited. All reviewers are required to submit their reviews electronically via Editorial Manager (since 22 August 2022).

New submissions are initially assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned Journal Editor (hereafter also referred to as the “editors”) to assess suitability and match the current focus of the journal and completeness of the requirements for publication. The initial desk-check usually lasts no more than one week. Then there are normally three (3) reviews for each submission (as a minimum), submitted through the Editorial Manager. When submitting their manuscripts, authors must suggest a minimum of three potential reviewers (with institutional email addresses) who have no conflict of interest with the research. The editors can make use of these suggestions. They carefully select and verify multiple reviewers proposed by the system, while choosing reviewers/securing reviewers’ expertise solely from the field of interest/inquiry, securing/enhancing regional and institutional diversity, and respecting their current workload. Since 2023, the journal’s Editorial Board Members are not allowed to act as reviewers for the journal. In case of any reviewer-related issues, the whole Editorial Board is asked to provide their individual recommendations.

The first round of peer review typically concludes within 3–4 weeks. In justified cases, this time is adjusted per case individually by editors. Reviewers can suggest accepting, making a minor or major revision, or rejecting a paper. The editors make sure the reviews meet the journal standards before they are sent to the authors. Based on the reviews, the editors reserve the right to reject the paper or request the authors to adjust it. Decisions by editors are made based on all the information provided in the reviews. If a revision is suggested or requested, authors are asked to explain how the suggestions of reviewers have been incorporated upon the revised submission, as well as a rebuttal if some of the reviewers’ comments cannot be revised. Authors are given a reasonable amount of time to revise the paper, based on the extent of necessary changes. In case of major changes, the paper is returned to reviewers – if possible, to the original ones.

Authors are always informed promptly of each decision made, of reasoned, requested or recommended modifications, and of additional explanations needed. The progress or current status of the manuscript can also be checked in the author’s account in the Editorial Manager submission system. After the texts have been reviewed, the comments of the reviewers must be considered and incorporated into the text without unnecessary delays. In particular cases (for instance, when the revision involves substantial changes), the editors may request additional reviews, normally by the original reviewers if they had agreed to review a revision. The final decision is usually provided no later than a month from the revised submission. The author(s) of the article have the right to withdraw their contribution at any time.

Decisions on any papers submitted by editors of this journal are handled independently. The in-house reviewing is considered to be a form of conflict of interest (explained in more detail below) to decide on or review the work of their colleagues. The peer-review process for the journal’s special issues follows the same process as outlined above for regular submissions, with the exception that a guest editor may send the submissions out to the reviewers and may recommend a decision to the journal editor. Guest editors are primarily nominated and approved by the editor-in-chief, with the Editorial board possibly involved in consultation. Proposals and recommendations regarding special issues and guest editors can be sent to the journal office in writing. All potential guest editors and proposed journal issue topics are reviewed and vetted by the editor-in-chief to ensure they are actual, relevant for the journal’s scope, reputable and free of conflicts of interest. Guest editors are typically expected to be eminent researchers in the field.

In this case, the editor-in-chief is completely excluded from the process if they submit a paper to their journal. It means that they have no access to the submission system for their paper and cannot see who the reviewers are. A deputy editor or the executive editor takes over the entire decision-making process in such cases. The published paper must include a disclosure statement explaining that the editor-in-chief was not involved in the peer review or the final decision. Submissions authored by editors will be assigned to at least three independent outside reviewers. Decisions will be made by other Editorial Board Members who do not have a conflict of interest with the author. Journal staff are not involved in the processing of their own/institutional work submitted to the ALFA journal.

In general, the journal editor oversees the entire process in order to ensure high standards of publishing ethics and responsiveness, and is responsible for the pre-submission and final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles.

Since 2024, the journal has published a list of reviewers for the published papers as a part of the final issue of each year solely at the official journal webpage. Only the names of reviewers who had agreed to be listed are made available. The list is in alphabetical order and contains only names with academic titles, with no information on who reviewed which articles.

Last update: 30 April 2026