Reviewers Guidelines

The process of reviewing the articles received for publication takes place in two stages:

  1. The Editorial Board checks the article typing rules; if the rules are not respected, the editors will send back the article to the author(s) to remedy inconsistencies. You can download the Template here.
  2. Article prepared according to the Template will be sent to at least two reviewers. The reviewing system will meet the double-blind review.

Reviewing is based on a set of assessment criteria, which refer to:

  • Attributes of Contribution
  • Attributes of Research
  • Attributes of Presentation

Each one has five questions that reviewers respond to.

The reviewers will evaluate the manuscript with respect to:

  • Topic. The submission should address topics which are relevant and of current interest for the researchers in the field of Civil Engineering. Submissions which provide related interdisciplinary applications are also considered.
  • Results and methods. The results should be original, well-motivated and correctly proved. The methods (used or developed) should be clearly described and correctly applied. In the case of new approaches or proofs for previous results, the originality of the proposed techniques and methods will be evaluated as well as their relevance in the area.
  • Structure and organization of the paper. The submission should be well structured, ensuring a logical flow of ideas and/or reasoning. The previous results in the literature must be accurately referred to and properly cited. The references must be given with all the details.
  • Language. The articles are written in English and the accuracy should be ensured such that the article is free of spelling or grammar errors.

The reviewers’ reports will be given in English. The reviewer should provide:

  • One of the recommendations:
  • The paper can be accepted as it is.
  • The paper can be accepted after a minor revision.
  • The paper could be accepted only after a major revision.
  • The paper should be rejected.
  • Comments for the authors, pointing out strong and weak points of the paper and giving suggestions for improving the quality of the paper.
  • Confidential remarks for the editors (if necessary)

If the resolution is “Accepted as it is“, then the article will be published in the current issue of the journal.

If the resolution is “Accepted with minor or major revision“, the article is sent to the author(s) to address the issues identified, after which it is introduced back in the review process.

If the resolution is “Rejected“, the article will not be published.

The authors are informed on the status of their manuscript and on the decision by one of the Managing Editors or by the Editor-in-Chief. Manuscripts sent back to the authors for revision should be returned to the editor without delay. Revised manuscripts can be sent to editorial office through the Online Submission Interface.

Our standards for reviewers are as follows:

The reviewer holds no conflicts of interest with the authors, including if they have published together in the last five years.

The reviewer holds at least a PhD.

The reviewer must have recent publications in the field of the submitted paper.