Peer Review Policy
The Journal of Sustainable Civil Engineering and Technology (JSCET) uses a double-anonymous peer review process to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated fairly, independently and objectively. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. JSCET follows relevant principles and guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
1. Peer Review Process
The peer review process follows these stages:
Submission → Initial Editorial Assessment → Reviewer Selection → Peer Review → Editorial Decision → Revision → Final Decision → Publication
Stage 1: Submission
All manuscripts must be submitted through the journal’s online submission system. The editorial office checks each submission for completeness and compliance with the journal’s submission requirements.
Stage 2: Initial Editorial Assessment
The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor assesses each manuscript to determine whether it:
- fits the journal’s aims and scope
- meets the basic submission requirements
- demonstrates sufficient originality and scholarly value
- meets relevant research and publication ethics requirements
Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal’s scope or do not meet the basic requirements may be rejected without external peer review.
Stage 3: Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.
Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise and ability to provide an objective and constructive assessment. Reviewers should have no actual or potential conflict of interest with the authors or the research being assessed. Where possible reviewers from the same institution as the authors are avoided.
Author-suggested reviewers may be considered but the final selection rests with the editor.
Stage 4: Peer Review
JSCET uses double-anonymous peer review. Reviewers do not have access to the identities of the authors and authors do not receive the identities of the reviewers.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on relevant academic and ethical considerations, including:
- originality and significance
- relevance to JSCET’s aims and scope
- research design and methodology
- quality of data and analysis
- clarity and presentation of results
- quality of discussion
- validity of conclusions
- quality and relevance of references
- compliance with research and publication ethics
- contribution to sustainable civil engineering and technology
Reviewers are expected to provide objective, evidence-based and constructive comments that assist the editor in making a decision and help authors improve their manuscripts.
Stage 5: Editorial Decision
The editor considers the reviewers’ reports together with the editor’s own assessment of the manuscript. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not determine the editorial decision. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor.
Possible decisions are:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
Editorial decisions are based on the academic quality, originality, relevance and integrity of the manuscript. Decisions are not influenced by commercial interests, institutional considerations or personal relationships.
Stage 6: Revision
When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a response to the reviewers’ comments. Authors should clearly indicate how each substantive comment has been addressed.
The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers when further assessment is considered necessary. Additional revisions may be requested before a final decision is made.
Stage 7: Final Decision
The editor evaluates the revised manuscript and the reviewers’ comments where applicable. A manuscript is accepted only when the editor is satisfied that it meets the journal’s academic, technical and ethical standards.
Stage 8: Publication
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofreading and production before publication. The final published article becomes part of the journal’s permanent scholarly record.
2. Review Timeline
JSCET aims to complete the initial peer review within 2 to 4 weeks after suitable reviewers have accepted the review invitation. The actual review period may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity and the extent of revision required.
The journal may seek additional reviewers when necessary to obtain an appropriate and balanced assessment.
3. Confidentiality
Manuscripts, reviewer reports and related editorial communications are treated as confidential.
Reviewers and editors must not disclose, share or use unpublished information from a manuscript for purposes unrelated to the review process.
Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports or other confidential materials to generative artificial intelligence tools or other third-party services where confidentiality cannot be guaranteed.
4. Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest and decline the review when the conflict could affect or reasonably appear to affect their objectivity.
Editors must also disclose and appropriately manage conflicts of interest. Where necessary, the manuscript will be assigned to another editor who has no conflict of interest.
Authors must disclose relevant competing interests in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics requirements.
5. Research Integrity
Reviewers should notify the editor if they identify concerns relating to possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate image manipulation, unethical research practices or other forms of research or publication misconduct.
JSCET will assess and investigate such concerns in accordance with its publication ethics policies and relevant COPE guidance. Where necessary, appropriate corrective action will be taken to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.
6. Appeals
Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a written request to the editorial office. The appeal must clearly explain the grounds for reconsideration and provide relevant supporting information.
An appeal may be considered when there is evidence of a significant procedural error, a misunderstanding of the manuscript or relevant information that was not considered during the review process. An appeal is not intended to provide an opportunity to submit substantially new work or to challenge an editorial decision solely because the authors disagree with the reviewers.
The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal or assign it to an appropriate independent editor. The decision following the appeal is final.
