About the Journal

ENQ (Enquiry), an open access journal for architectural research, is an online journal (ISSN 2329-9339) published by the Board of the Architectural Research Centers Consortium (ARCC) as a source for information on research in architecture. The journal is double blind peer reviewed and invites submissions on a wide variety of topics addressing architectural knowledge including aspects of urban design, interior design, planning and landscape architecture.

ENQ is indexed by the Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, Worldcat, OAIster, and Google Scholar; a member of the Open Archive Initiative (OAI), archived by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ); and is a publisher member of CrossRef for stable DOI management, ensuring maximum exposure of our authors.

Potential authors need to register at the Journal's website in order to submit an article for consideration. The Journal is focused on research questions within the domain of architectural knowledge. Enquiry does not have an ideological agenda instead focuses on depth and quality of research associated with architectural domains of knowledge. This means all articles will need to have a clear research structure including strong and defensible positions, scope of the territory being addressed, clear methods and evidence of significance to adding to our current knowledge.

Focus and Scope

Enquiry initially providing a dissemination venue for existing ARCC members through publication of the best papers from annual conferences and providing a format for guest-editors to thematically organize research. However, the journal has grown substantially since 2012 as an open access on-line peer-reviewed journal and has become a valuable vehicle to disseminate scholarship activitie by the discipline at-larges.

In response to this charge, the journal's focus and scope is aligned with modes of inquiry fundamental to architectural research, rather than specifying the type of content suitable for publication in the journal. This is expected to foster diversity that is integral to the ARCC and its members, and will establish protocols that will ensure the credibility of its research and scholarship.

As scholarship activities in the discipline of architecture tend to be interdisciplinary, there are several of relevant distinctions; qualitative and qualitative research, base and applied research, empirical research and theoretical research, etc. However, many methodological and research structures used in architecture formed naturally in parallel or associated disciplines, suggesting a vestigial priority that might bias the direction of the journal. As a result, the editors decided to identify three modes of research, or lines of inquiry, particular to architectural scholarship.



Contributive: Extending a Knowledge Base (or, Adding to the Existing Body of Knowledge)

One of the historic strengths of the journal has been its construction of primary research. Conducted through surveys, building case studies, and descriptions of pedagogical experiments, this work contributes to the knowledge base of practitioners, teachers and scholars. The need for the continued expansion of this type of research was a point of discussion at the commencement of the 2013 ARCC conference “The Visibility of Research.” In response to Marc Simmons, Founding Partner of Front, Inc., the question of the validity and potential of “base research” in architecture became central. Given the frequency of directed and often proprietary (are you referring to originality of the research?) qualities of architectural research, the discussion revolved around the role of colleges and institutions as being the primary vehicles and stewards for the discipline’s fundamental knowledge base. A line of inquiry that encourages researchers to add to the existing body of knowledge utilizing sound and established methodologies is critical.

In this vein, both qualitative and quantitative methods are engaged and while base and empirical research are foregrounded, they are not considered without application or consequence. Rather, the research is tied to its particular situations and intentions, and outcomes follow directly through methodologies.


Speculative: Projecting Consequences

A large volume of our scholarship comes from taking over already existing knowledge bases, aligning external content with disciplinary concerns, making new associations between previously unconnected knowledge and then speculating about their contemporary significance. While such research may not be strictly empirical or follow scientific method structures, these strains of theory become relevant and legitimatized through testing against reality. Such work can be interdisciplinary and strongly cultural, as researchers examine work constructed through architecture, urban design, interiors and landscape architecture through lenses of economics, anthropology, media studies, and so on. In addition, the reverse is also true, as developed knowledge in other disciplines is considered for its relevancy to disciplinary values in architecture and allied disciplines , clearly extending understanding. The credibility of this research is conditioned by the rigor of the inquiry, the scope of the study and its ability to qualify relevant literature.


Intensive: Reflecting on the Institutions and Methods of Research

Given the contemporary resurgence of research (rather than history, theory, or criticism) as the privileged mode of architectural scholarship, it would be useful to qualify the institutional, economic, and professional conditions of research. The contemporary growth of PhD programs, the influx of funding by state and federal governments for environmental research, and the emergence of on-line publishing venues (of which Enquiry is one) requires attention. There is currently no dedicated venue for such scholarship. Providing such a space would expand our scholarship and provide a much needed arena for reflection and discussion.

Peer Review Process

Authors’ rights to and responsibility for their work

Contributors who submit manuscripts to the journal will at all times be secured sovereign possession of and full responsibility for their own contributions until the manuscript is published. By publishing, the author(s) give the journal long right to present the published manuscript in the form in which it is published, and to be cited as the first publisher of the manuscript. This implies that before publication, the author(s) can at any time revoke the manuscript, object to the proposed changes and/or submit their own proposals for changes that need to be made. When the manuscript is accepted for publication after peer review, the author(s) relinquish their right to make changes to the manuscript or to object to changes made by the editorial team. If the author(s) continue to object at this point, it is up to the editorial team to evaluate whether the manuscript should be left as is, undergo a new peer review or be rejected for publication. With publication come all rights and obligations arising from the authors’ copyrights.


Peer review

When a contribution is received, the editorial team will first decide whether it is relevant to the journal’s main focus and scope and is of sufficient academic quality. All relevant contributions will then go through one or more rounds of anonymous peer review with at least two reviewers, and then, if accepted, editing, including manuscript editing, layout editing and proofreading; this process is managed by an editor and carried out by professionally qualified appraisers (in-house editors and external peer reviewers).

The journal ensures full editorial quality of all submissions. The author(s) have both the right and duty to approve or reject the proposed changes and amendments presented during manuscript processing. Until the manuscript is published, it will be treated with confidentiality by the editorial team, in terms of all personal information.

Peer reviewers assess the contributions and write a review that, among other things, should answer the following questions:

• How valid is the contribution?

Are the results plausible, and are the theory and methodology suitable for the purposes of this journal?

• How relevant and appropriate is the contribution?

Does it address any of the field’s current key challenges?

• How original is the contribution?

Does it contribute new knowledge to the field? Is the information presented in the contribution current, relevant and fit for the journal’s purposes?

• Should the contribution be accepted, revised or rejected?

If not accepted, should the author submit the article to another journal?


Peer reviewers’ work thus concludes with a recommendation to the editors that the manuscript be accepted, revised or rejected. It is then up to the editorial team to determine whether the manuscript should be published. Further information on the peer review process and editorial evaluation can also be found in the discussion of the different journal sections; the assessment process varies to some extent, depending on the various categories of information.

Plagiarism Screening

Enquiry uses Crosscheck for plagiarism screening at the point of article submission. Any article found to have violated academic honesty will be summarily rejected. In addition, should it come to the awareness of the Editors that any published article which was not identified by our plagiarism check processes but is shown to have plagiarized, it will be removed from our database immediately.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. There are no fees involved for authors nor any fiscal influence applied to the submission, selection or publication of articles. ENQ and the ARCC are committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research through partnering with organizations for a third party archive and to maintain it own digital archive. 

Journal History

ENQ is an e-journal initiated in 2004 by the Board of ARCC as a source for information on research in architecture. The original journal, developed by the executive editor Brooke Harrington, ran from 2004 to 2010. In 2012, the Board of the ARCC redeveloped the journal to move from print to digital publication. The journal is double blind peer reviewed that invites submissions on a wide variety of topics in architecture, urban design interior design, planning and landscape architecture.


Statement on Ethics & Publication Malpractice Statement

Enquiry (ENQ), Online ISSN 2329-9339,  and its governing institution, The Architectural Research Centers Consortium (ARCC), are dedicated to following best practices on ethical matters, errors, and retractions. The prevention of publication malpractice is one of the important responsibilities of the editorial board. The Editorial Board of this journal does not tolerate unethical behavior of any kind or plagiarism in any form. It is the responsilbity of authors submitting articles to ENQ to affirm that manuscript contents are original.

This journal is aligned with best practiced documented by COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics in its Core Practices as well as its flowcharts. All articles published by ENQ must conform to these internationally accepted ethical guidelines.

Duties of Editor-in-Chief, Editor, and Copy Editor

  1. The Editor-in-Chief has complete responsibility and authority to accept, reject or request modifications to the submitted article. The Editor-in-Chief and each editor must ensure that each article is initially evaluated for originality, making use of appropriate software to do so. Following an editorial review, the article is forwarded for double blind peer review to selected experts in the articles realm of focus who will make a recommendation to accept, reject, or modify the article.
  2. Editors evaluate submitted articles exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.
  3. Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted article to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
  4. Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted article for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Editors will recuse themselves from considering articles in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the article.
  5. Editors will publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies whenever needed.
  6. Articles will not be rejected based on suspicions but only when there is valid proof of misconduct.

Duties of Guest Editors

  1. Guest editors are responsible for defining the subject matter and role of every article in a thematic issue. They must provide clear guidelines to authors regarding the topic and boundaries of their contributions and the overall design of the issue.
  2. Guest editors must work with the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board to ensure that appropriate reviewers are selected for all the articles, that all articles are processed through a double-blind peer review regardless to whether the article was invited or submitted as result of a call for papers.
  3. Guest editors are responsible to work with editors and the editorial board to establish a timeline for draft paper submission, peer review, revision and final paper submission and ensuring that all deadlines are met;

Duties of Authors

  1. Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
  2. Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works and, if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
  3. Authors should not submit  a manuscript for considerationthat has already been published in another journal.
  4. Individuals indenitified as authors must be able to take public responsibility for the content. An individual should only be listed as an author if they made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; drafted the article or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the article but who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named as been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate coauthors are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.
  5. Authors should disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. 
  6. Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.
  7. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them; the manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.
  8. Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions.
  9. When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper. 

Duties of Reviewers

  1. Reviewers evaluate articles based on content without regard to the authors’ race, age, gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, religious belief, citizenship, political orientation or social class.
  2. A potential reviewer should withdraw from the review process if he/she feels unqualified to assess the contribution or cannot provide an assessment in a timely manner as defined by the editor. In addition, reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
  3. Any article received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
  4. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the article.

Duties of Advisory Board Members

  1. The advisory board typically consists of a group of prominent scholars in the field of architecture and allied disciplines.
  2. Board members generally attend one or two annual meetings through video conferences or virtual communications and advise on journal policy and scope, suggest ideas, new initiatives and programs to support the development of the journal.
  3. Board members may review submitted manuscripts, identify topics for special issues or attract new authors and submissions if necessary.