Peer Review Process

Every manuscript submitted to the Journal of Sustainable Civil Materials and Structures passes through the following stages.

  1. Administrative screening — completeness, formatting, declarations, and similarity checking.
  2. Editorial scope assessment — relevance, novelty, scientific quality, and sustainability contribution.
  3. Associate Editor assignment — selection based on technical expertise.
  4. Double-anonymized peer review — normally by at least two independent reviewers.
  5. Editorial decision — reject, major revision, minor revision, or accept.
  6. Revision assessment — reviewer reassessment where necessary.
  7. Final technical and ethical checks.
  8. Copyediting, typesetting, proofreading, and online publication.

Performance Targets

Initial editorial screening7–10 days
Reviewer period21 days
First decision after review35–45 days
Accepted to online publication15–25 days
Minimum external reviewersTwo
Plagiarism / similarity screeningEvery submission
Target acceptance rate during establishment25–35%

The acceptance rate arises from editorial quality control rather than being predetermined for marketing purposes.

Evaluation Criteria

Manuscripts are evaluated on originality and scientific contribution; relevance to the journal’s scope; methodological rigor; adequacy of experimental or numerical validation; reproducibility; quality of data analysis; the connection between material behaviour and structural application; quantification of sustainability benefits; practical or policy relevance; quality and clarity of presentation; and compliance with research and publication ethics.

A manuscript does not need to address every criterion, but sustainability must be demonstrated — not merely asserted.

Publication Ethics

The journal follows the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the guidance of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors where applicable, Crossref standards, the FAIR data principles, the CRediT contributor-role taxonomy, and ORCID author identification. Editorial independence is maintained in all decisions, and reviewer identities are kept confidential.