Visions and Expectations for Publishing Landscape Scholarship

BACKGROUND

Landscape scholars publish their research articles in several outlets, but compared with other disciplines the choices can be relatively narrow. Landscape scholars simultaneously search and find new information that informs the development of knowledge from a wide array of venues. A subset of these landscape scholars, landscape architecture (LA) scholars, especially those who are members of the Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture (CELA), might reasonably consider Landscape Journal (LJ) one of the central choices for reading and publishing research. Understanding what researcher-authors seek in scholarly venues and how this is changing is a germane question. Coupled with it are the expectations of readers, research publishers, and societies. All of these have goals and desires for scholarship about the design, planning, and management of the land (Brown and Corry, 2011).

In an era of ubiquitous social media and indicators of appreciation such as “likes,” researchers, authors, and journals have become increasingly attentive to measures of their own reach and success. Digital distribution and publication of research and tracking of article access and use facilitates monitoring of research value. The measures include numerical scores attached to a journal venue, researcher, and article (e.g., journal rankings, researcher impact, and the citations by other indexed articles or in casual ways). This ability to count access and use has translated to a now-familiar emphasis on impact for researchers and their institutions.

Measures of research reach and success are anecdotally common in annual reviews of LA faculty at many scholarly institutions, including CELA member schools. At the University of Guelph, for example, LA faculty are reviewed against criteria that include “evidence of peer-reviewed excellence … including the impact of research excellence such as impact factors or citations.” Texas A&M University criteria state explicit expectations for impact that refer to “number of citations or downloads” and “competitiveness of outlets.” Guidelines for promotion and tenure at the University of Manitoba require assessments that show “impact with measurable data where applicable.” These are convenient examples of how landscape scholarship impacts are assessed and have become the norm.

Recent LA faculty position announcements emphasize an expectation for research productivity that is increasing. In a review of LA faculty positions over a decade, Ozdil (2020) identified increasing specificity and reference to research programs and productivity, along with high expectations for relevance to professional practice. LA faculty are compared on research productivity and impact using citation analysis tools (Brown et al., 2020: Park et al., 2021). These trends relate to an interest in an evidence basis for LA (as defined by Brown and Corry, 2011), to LA education that explicitly references rigorous knowledge in design (Nassauer, 2020), as well as to translation of landscape design scholarship into practice (Brown and Corry, 2020) and interdisciplinary research (Nassauer and Opdam, 2008). The explicit need for robust scholarship in academic institutions coincides with an increased emphasis on faculty productivity (Meijering et al., 2015; Milburn and Brown, 2016), as well as changing the expectations of landscape researcher-authors and the relationship with readers, who might apply advancements in landscape knowledge through practice.

Impact formulae are widely used in publication to gauge the potential of a journal venue. Authors (or potential authors) take note of journal impact in striving for a wider audience and more extensive knowledge and use of their research. Journals with higher impact provide a taller perch from which to see the surroundings and to be noticed from those surroundings. Higher journal impact factors attract more submissions from a wider global community. This increases competition for publication in such venues and the likelihood that submission quality improves.

Simultaneously, researcher-authors have easy access to their own impacts through metrics like h-index values (Hirsch, 2005). Websites such as Scopus, ORCID, Clarivate, and ResearchGate provide impact values or scores for researchers and their peers in ways that engender attention and might motivate individuals to increase their impact. Common search platforms—for example, Google Scholar—report similar measures for many scholars in classifications of their expertise, such as LA (https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=search_authors&hl=en&mauthors=label:landscape_architecture).

The attention to impact, reach, and citation is not limited to scholars. For an applied profession like LA, impact and reach explicitly include the action of changing landscapes—as the intent of research is to eventually inform and improve landscape practice (van den Brink and Bruns, 2014). This remains a gap in recognizing or quantifying impact, one that other disciplines related to practice (such as engineering, accounting, law, or medicine) might also want to document. Textbooks or articles used in accredited professional programs or exam preparation are not accounted for in measures of reach or impact but may be substantially influential in the education and preparation of registered practitioners.

While “mentions” appear in some measurements of impact of a scholar, they are less common and might be valued differently than citations in peer-reviewed articles. Altmetric and PlumX scores, for example, include mentions in news stories, in policy papers, and on social media. Within-practice measures of research impact do not yet exist, but references from practicing landscape architects might imply relevance and impact.

BREADTH OF KNOWLEDGE AND ACCESS

Critical to the research and publication of landscape scholarship is that these activities remain wide so that they are broadly informed and applicable to the range and diversity of landscapes and the design thereof. Landscapes are boundary objects: they are complex entities where multiple actors, disciplines, professions, and interests meet (Arts et al., 2017). Scholarship about landscapes that is wide and open is likely to advance rational and creative engagement through landscape practice. Provincial landscape perspectives might be minimized if they do not engage beyond disciplinary (or professional) boundaries (Opdam et al., 2013).

LA scholarship is sometimes funneled to a few scholarly journals, most of which are not widely read by LA practitioners (Gobster et al., 2010). The bridge from research to practice is not burdened with heavy traffic, although there are forays of research profiled, for example, in popular LA serials or outlets. LA scholarship often remains within the LA research community (mostly faculty members in LA programs) through limited exposure in subscription journals that reside in university library collections. It does not extensively reach into to other landscape research venues to be found, read, and used by those who come to landscape science from outside of LA. This leaves much LA scholarship to be focused only on the knowledge and application within LA and means that other landscape scholarship might not reference what is known in this field (Gobster et al., 2010).

The complexity of landscape research involves many disciplines and fields of study. Yet the extent and depth of LA scholarship is not accessed, used, or perhaps respected as much as it could be outside of its community. The breadth of knowledge is expanding, but breadth of access to this knowledge remains limiting.

The impact of peer-reviewed scholarly journals with the word “landscape” in the title is one way of estimating the access and use of scholarship. Of the handful of landscape-titled journals that are published by academic publishers (Table 1), few publish papers authored by LA scholars. These journals often have lower impact or use. There is a chasm between the impact and citations of the first two titles (Landscape and Urban Planning and Landscape Ecology) and the remainder of the list. The two journals at the top of the list typically contain articles whose author disciplines do not include LA. Yet these journals identify landscape architects among their audience along with other disciplines in landscape studies.

Access relates to the form and distribution model of the publication. Many academic journals have forgone print publication for digital publication. The cost of producing paper copies of scholarly journals can be expensive, and high-quality paper publications such as the award-winning LJ incur additional expenses. Yet the tactile quality of a well-finished publication is a mark of excellence for a design profession.

Reliance on print publication decreases the timeliness of article distribution, while authors want rapid release after acceptance and typesetting. Indeed, time to publication is a common criterion for authors when considering venues for publication of their work. Publications can offer both print and digital distribution, but as the number of printed issues declines, the price per unit increases.

A common publishing model for scholarly journals is continuous digital publication. Articles accepted for publication move rapidly to layout, approval, and online publication—in some cases, months ahead of being placed in an issue. Rapid availability of research is attractive for staying current with urgent problems (e.g., pandemics or weather events) and for faculty looking to demonstrate annual progress without delay. Continuous digital publication is relatively cost-effective for publishers and societies that own journals because printing, warehousing, and distribution costs are reduced or eliminated. For societies with global membership, mailing costs are substantial, and web hosting charges for digital publication pale in comparison.

DEPTH OF KNOWLEDGE AND ACCESS

Citation counts and calculations as well as impact factors are two of the most common ways to learn how and where landscape scholarship is being accessed, used, and having influence. A prerequisite to a journal establishing and maintaining these quantitative measures is an adequate number of articles and issues, as well as being on schedule with publication. Journals that are small, infrequently published, or behind schedule are understandably less likely to have broad reach and impact, but their depth can still be noteworthy. Even a small, current journal can have a meaningful impact and a high proportion of articles cited if the content is high quality, salient, and relevant to other researchers (and practitioners). However, achieving this feat requires that articles would need to be readily located and accessed to eventually become highly cited or applied.

The utility of research is a function of exploring and accessing articles. The research publication must be available in normal search activities by researchers or practitioners. Indexed journals make the research easier to find for the searcher who uses a particular index—in places such as Scopus, Web of Science, JSTOR, Project Muse, or Medline. All of the journals listed in Table 1 are indexed. Mundane or casual search techniques that attempt to limit to scholarly research (such as that which originates at CELA member schools) can be effective but might require additional gleaning to assess reputability and relevance—for example, to know if the research has been independently reviewed. Finally, some accessible repositories of research exist, such as ResearchGate or university library collections. They often hold nonpublished, prepress, or published research depending on copyright arrangements. This latter class includes collections that are difficult to search without knowing details about the title, author, or publication contents. In addition, they might require subsequent contact with an author before the granting access. Receiving publication requests from people registered on sites such as ResearchGate is common.

After identifying that research with particular attributes exists, the subsequent step is to access the reports. “Open” is the word that captures the movement to make research more accessible to anyone via the internet. Openness refers to dissemination of research results, sharing data, making peer reviews more widely representative, and weighing different cultures of knowledge generation. “Open access” refers to making research freely available to anyone who can locate it. Open access also refers to a growing expectation of openness and transparency in research activities, including funding, ethics clearances, and peer reviews.

Open access publication takes two common forms. The first is “gold” open access, which means that the research publication is completely and freely available to anyone once it has been published. There are no restrictions on access (i.e., it is accessible online). The second form is “green” open access, which has restrictions on the version of the article or access that are commonly time-limited after the date of publication, often in the form of a temporary embargo or a prepress version. Within the restriction period, the article is available only to paid subscribers, after which the article is available freely to anyone.

Both forms of open access are increasing rapidly. The number of open access titles has grown dramatically, and the nonprofit Directory of Open Access Journals (doaj.org) reports close to 16,000 journals with 5.7 million article records in 80 languages. AAAS (the publisher of the Science group of journals) announced early in 2021 that it now provides green open access to researchers whose funders require open access publication (affecting up to 31% of the journal’s articles) (Brainard, 2021). Other scholarly publishers have increasingly branched their offerings to create new online publication arms and new open access titles alongside traditional subscription journals.

The open access publisher Springer Nature reports that 28% of its visitors were general users (including professionals) and 15% more worked in roles that required them to consume research but not generate it (Brainard, 2021). One of the principal advantages of open access is the increase in use and citation of articles published openly. This freely accessible research gets consumed and referenced more frequently. Although this increase in access and use has been substantial and touted, controlling for article quality and appeal has challenged fair comparisons—some authors may make only their best and most appealing papers open access. When quality and appeal were controlled for, a study found that for research in ecology and botany subjects, the increase in citations is significant but small at about 8% compared to proprietary articles (McCabe and Snyder, 2014).

An additional openness term that might affect landscape scholarship is “open science.” This is defined as a completely open process of scholarship dissemination where the knowledge sharing is similar to gold open access but includes the process of submission, review, and data sharing, where all are transparently reported. Connected to this is a movement to make peer review a paid service as a way to incentivize authors to submit only their highest-quality articles for review and enhance the sustainability of the peer-review process by supporting the costs of these reviews.

In Europe, a collective movement to make research more open has been underway since 2018. Research funding agencies and research institutions have been cooperating under the title Coalition S. Under their Plan S, they have been requiring that research funded through these agencies must be made openly available (through gold or green open access publication). This has led to changes with a number of journals to make open access options available and has coincided with a dramatic increase in the number of open access journal launches and the increasing number of open access articles in subscription journals (Brainard, 2021). While a slight majority of European funders have an open access requirement, only a minority monitor compliance (Brainard, 2021).

At U.S. universities, the University of California, Berkeley, led the charge to open access in 2013 when it required that all faculty on its senate make their research publicly available. In 2015, the policy was expanded to all University of California employees (although waiving the open access requirement is a possibility) (Rooholfada, 2021). The Australian Research Council began requiring that all research outputs to be open access in 2013 (Australian Research Council, 2013). Researchers in other nations have taken note of these openness requirements that have been led by scholars in Europe, the United States, and Australia.

UC Berkeley succeeded in making more open access options available to its faculty, particularly with the publisher Springer Nature. The university has continued to negotiate with Elsevier for the same purposes (Rooholfada, 2021). Others that have followed UC Berkeley include the University of Michigan, Harvard University, and the University of British Columbia (all CELA member schools).

In the same University of California system, however, librarians calculated the difference between what university libraries pay now in subscription fees and what the university might need to pay in open access fees (recognizing that these are from different budgets). For universities with reputations for intensive research, including several CELA member schools, their open access charges would exceed their current subscription expenses, in some instances by a wide margin (Mellon Foundation, 2016). The report concluded that open access charges require competitive pricing pressures to avoid cost increases that would draw larger fractions of research funds to pay for publication. Subscription journals require the same competitive pressures because recent growth in subscription bundling and pricing have been unsustainable (Suber, 2019a).

Although the trajectory of open access publication may not exhibit a predictable growth curve, Suber (2019b) noted that “those who want to live in a world where all peer-reviewed journal literature is free online are themselves growing in numbers and will soon hold power in universities, libraries, learned societies, publishers, funding agencies, and governments.”

THE CHALLENGES

Central to the challenges of online publication is the fact that research publication is a commercial enterprise (a business): it is not a public good, nor is it free from entrepreneurial competitiveness. Three challenges immediately arise in considering more open access dissemination for LA researchers. First is the cost and source needed to pay article processing charges associated with open access, especially in a discipline with scant research funding. Second is the viability of journals as they increase the number of open access articles in a subscription (hybrid) model, or “flip” a journal to open access—something that affects publishers and societies. A third critical challenge for society-owned journals like LJ is what happens when a principal benefit of society membership—access to journal content—is free? In the following sections, I address the second challenge separately, then combine the other challenges.

Viability without Subscription

Libraries and individual subscribers to any serial are paying for access to content they value. Making any part of this material freely available might proportionally decrease the costs of their subscriptions, and some subscriptions might not be renewed. This is an authentic challenge for publishers, especially when publishing open access content in a subscription journal—the hybrid model that LJ currently provides. Logically, why would a subscriber pay for access to privileged material as the content becomes less privileged? As subscription rates decline (Figure 1), this question becomes more prescient: does it become more difficult to grow paid subscriptions in an era of increased open access?

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 1

Changes in LJ print subscriptions and electronic subscriptions, 2007-2017.

When an increasing number of articles in an issue of a hybrid journal become open access, subscribers notice and react to the change. Anecdotally, open access fractions of up to one-fifth of articles in an issue might be tolerated, after which subscription costs would be expected to reduce or subscribers might end their subscription. This poses a unique problem for smaller journals, where an issue may have an average of six articles (LJ’s average over the past decade). One open access article might be acceptable, but two would trigger subscribers’ attention—institutional subscribers (e.g., university libraries) in particular.

Allowing one open access article per issue becomes a balancing act for the journal editors. If more than one article seeking open access is under consideration for publication, a backlog could develop as editors attempt to manage open:subscription article ratios to maintain a viable journal. At the same time, authors seeking quicker distribution of their articles might look for more open venues.

Simultaneously, if authors choose to publish more open access articles, the printed publishing model becomes unpredictable if article processing charges do not offset reductions in subscription revenues (whether by fewer subscriptions or reduced subscription rates). Large publishing houses may be able to absorb some losses across the hundreds of journal titles they support, but smaller publishers may be more vulnerable to unpredictable swings during a transition period.

Article Charges and Membership Benefits

LA research funding is uncommon or modest. This leads to an immediate challenge for open access publication that invoices associated charges to the author (s). Because libraries pay for subscriptions to traditional scholarly journals, authors have only rarely provided additional payment in the form of page or color printing charges for published articles. In hybrid or open access journals, the article processing charges (Table 2) are the responsibility of the author. This shift in who pays for publishing research is difficult to manage for a discipline without a history of well-funded research.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup

Table 2.

Article Processing Charges for Journals with “Landscape” in the Title and Two Complementary Journals

University libraries negotiate agreements to reduce charges related to open access, so published article processing charges may be discounted for authors at some institutions. In addition, universities may provide funds for article processing charges on an application basis. Publishers may form agreements with researcher communities to support open access publication (an example is an agreement between Elsevier and the Canadian Research Knowledge Network to incentivize open access articles). Another avenue to manage costs of publication is through society membership, where members commonly receive discounts on article processing charges.

Society-owned journals have the authority to discount or waive article processing charges for society members or on the basis of ability to pay. This opportunity accomplishes two things simultaneously: it mitigates concerns about how to pay for article processing charges in an open access journal, and it acts as a significant membership benefit for the society—particularly for prolific authors or their member schools. When authors outside of the society publish and remit article processing charges, these make the journal more viable. Importantly, societies can deeply discount or waive publication charges for authors who have fewer economic advantages as a way to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion of these authors in the journal.

Revenues generated by subscriptions to society-owned journals are important to support activities of a society, including administration, maintaining memberships, staging conferences, and sponsoring awards and recognition. For an open access journal, subscription revenues disappear, although other revenue streams would flow from article processing charges and advertising. However, if a journal is distributed continuously and electronically instead of in print, costs of production decrease precipitously. The loss of subscription revenues, however, remains a principal concern for a scholarly society.

To offset losses of subscription revenues, societies can increase the number of members or change the benefits and costs of membership. Society memberships might increase with a new benefit of discounts or waivers for publication charges in their journal. Societies can address discounts through individual annual memberships, but that could lead to high turnover in member numbers as people opt in or out depending on their current intent to publish. It might be better to have membership at the level of a core academic unit, like CELA does (“core” referring to the LA faculty member numbers). This could lead to waivers or discounts for not only the academic unit, but also the academy in which it resides, making the society-owned journal attractive to the entirety of the colleges’ and universities’ authors. For impactful journals that reach an audience of scholars engaged in landscape studies, this benefit could accrue to several academic units, expanding the knowledge beyond the usual audience and increasing the salience of the journal to all landscape scholars. Such an expansion would lead to a wider understanding of landscape knowledge, better-informed research advances and applications, and additional impact for LA scholars.

Membership fees would need to be proportional to the size of the core academic unit to be equitable to the benefit of discounted or waived article processing charges. A small core program cannot access as many benefits as larger programs. For a scholarly society with a narrow range of membership size classes, deviations from the average program size might be useful divisions to differentiate membership costs. Smaller programs would pay lower fees, but likely access the member benefits less frequently than larger programs. When membership fees are constant for an academic unit regardless of program size, costs per member are lower, so proportioning membership fees would be more equitable across a society. An increase in membership fees can be palatable when it coincides with free access to the society’s journal that previously required a paid subscription. In LJ’s case, subscription rates are US$60 per year, so a program with 10 members might pay $540 more in subscriptions (one subscription is included with membership). But there is a risk that member schools whose engagement with the society is modest, or for whom the additional benefit of discounted or waived article charges is not enticing, might leave the society. Other members who are active, engaged, and contributing to the society’s journal or are from locations where open access publishing is expected (e.g., Plan S countries) would immediately reap the benefit.

An example of how waivers might work for a society-owned journal is illustrated for CELA and LJ (Figure 2). CELA’s membership profile has programs (considering full and associate member categories only) with a median size of seven faculty members and standard deviation of five faculty members. An approximately normal distribution of program by size is illustrated in Figure 2, and numbers of full and associate members in each size category are given in the caption. If each program paid an increase in membership fees that was proportional to its size category, smallest program membership would increase by one quarter of a single article processing charge for an open-access LJ, and each increase in size class would add one quarter article processing charge to the annual membership costs. For each membership class size, the equation means that publishing one article with LJ in a 4-year, 2-year, 1.5-year, or 1-year period is cost-neutral for the member program, and for some current CELA member schools the remittances would be less than what they currently pay. If other researchers at CELA institutions reap the benefit of a waiver, the breadth of scholarship widens at the same time that CELA member benefits to the institution are shared. This approach would be revenue-neutral for CELA.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 2

Example of hypothetical distribution of society members based on size classes, and how article processing charges (APCs) could be attributed to size classes. For CELA, falls between 2 and 3 faculty members; falls between 7 and 8; falls between 12 and 13. Assuming APC of $2,000 and membership dues of $2,000, costs to smallest programs increase 3∽$440 and largest programs 3∽$1,100 a year, but APCs are waived for all members and approach is revenue-neutral for the society. CELA has 13 full and associate member schools in each of the lowest and highest groups, and 27 schools in each of the two middle groups (total of 80 full and associate member schools). CELA full members currently pay a mean of $2,415 and median of $2,360 in dues and LJ subscriptions (range, $2,000-4,400).

Estimating the challenges of flipping a journal like LJ from subscription to open access requires some assumptions about changes to membership and article processing charges. Some members would probably end their membership (perhaps those in less-used membership categories), and others might join; article processing charges can be adjusted to support revenues to the society, possibly even decreasing over time with a cascading effect on member dues. Revenues to the society after flipping a journal to an open-access model could decline, remain neutral, or might eventually grow as impact, articles, and processing remittances increase. A society with financial reserves might be in a position to manage this risk.

An associated benefit of discounts or waivers of publication charges is that members gain additional value of membership when they publish articles in the society-owned journal instead of another open access alternative, with a positive effect on the quality of articles and the impact of the journal. With an increase in quality and impact, authors from outside the society increasingly seek to publish in its journal and contribute more article processing payments, which would ultimately benefit the society. Society membership might increase, especially globally for societies with a particular geographic concentration of members (e.g., the United States and Canada) or when the benefit of discounted article processing charges relates directly to a group of funders who require open access publication (e.g., Coalition S countries).

EFFECTS

Choosing a new publication model for a society-owned journal is likely to affect the society, its member-authors, and nonmember authors in different ways. A significant risk to the society is the uncertainty about how costs and revenues might change. Another key risk is that the journal could suffer attrition to the launch or flip of a competitive journal that offers authors desirable features such as open access and continuous digital publication. The membership benefits of the society might remain intact, but perhaps with diminishing vitality in their journal arm. A society would need to be in a sound financial position and ready to weather potential uncertainties over a period of a few years to execute such a change.

Member-authors would find increased value in publishing in their own journal, and ideally the impact and salience of the journal would grow, expanding this value over time. The process of publication in the society’s journal would not necessarily change, though time to publication and distribution might be shortened and access would certainly expand with an accompanying effect on impact. For coauthored articles, a member-author would provide greater value and access to their coauthors. Other scholars at society member schools could reap the benefits of society membership (as nominal memberauthors even if not normally part of the society), making the journal more attractive to others from outside the discipline and increasing potential impact. Membership dues would increase initially, but for societies like CELA, these are typically borne at the level of the academic unit with indirect effects on individual landscape scholars. Dues might remain elevated or could diminish as more authors publish in the journal and provide article processing payments. As noted, for larger programs the costs could diminish from the current sum of dues and subscriptions to LJ.

The impact for nonmember authors is less defined. If the journal grows in importance, nonmember authors would seek it as an outlet for their research, and increasingly might find value in society membership—especially those in nations that require more open scholarship. Nonmember authors would contribute article processing charges to the journal that increase its viability with the society. Charges can vary by submission type to encourage different types of submissions or representations. These charges would affect the decision-making of nonmember authors, yet the associated value of publishing in the society’s journal could grow over time. If nonmember authors were in less advantaged nations or institutions, they might have special accommodations for publication with discounts or waivers similar to member-authors. Alternatively, an editorial board could influence journal content by discounting charges for new types of submissions. These benefits would increase diversity in publication.

SUMMARY

The current state of publishing in landscape scholarship is robust and of increasing interest across disciplines. Landscape scholars are many and prolific, and the understanding and knowledge of design, planning, and management of the land continues to expand. LA authors who seek publication venues for their research have some distinct choices about audience, impact, time to publication, openness, and costs to publish. These journal attributes did not all exist or were not as easily monitored even just a few years ago, but with more ubiquitous and transparent reporting of these characteristics, authors have taken notice.

Some research authors are compared on the reach and impact of their reporting, with direct implications for their research programs and careers. Having exposure to a global community of readers with quick and open access to research articles is attractive and leads to significant differences (small, but positive) in the impact factor of research.

Making scholarship more open and impactful comes with unknowns or challenges, yet the trends to digital, continuous, open, and measured publication of scholarship are nearly universal. Journals with no or small impact and society-owned journals have unique opportunities because switching a journal to open access often means leaving behind a title and prior impact factor to start anew, something that most journals are reluctant to entertain. In fact, it explains the sudden increase in new open access journal titles as complements to established journals. However, flipping to open access often poses a dilemma. Journals with this opportunity:

• might have a singular auspicious moment at which to make this switch—when they are low in impact relative to their field;

• must be prepared for a period of growth (to populate the journal);

• must be supported by a society prepared to withstand some risk; and

• must have a membership that is committed to fueling change.

For CELA and LJ, the question is whether these conditions are satisfied at this point in time.

PEER REVIEW STATEMENT

Landscape Journal is an international refereed journal using double-blind peer review for all original research manuscripts, case studies, and scholarly literature reviews. Landscape Journal’s editorial team is committed to fostering the highest scholarly and ethical standards in journal publishing.