For Editors

Journal of Materials for the Built Environment (JMBE) is committed to rigorous, fair, transparent, and efficient editorial processes. Editors play a central role in maintaining the journal's academic quality, integrity, and long-term development.

JMBE editors are expected to exercise independent academic judgment, treat authors and reviewers fairly, protect confidential information, and manage manuscripts in accordance with the journal's editorial policies and publication ethics standards.

The journal operates a distributed editorial workflow in which Associate Editors (AEs) are responsible for manuscript handling and peer-review management, while the Deputy Editor (DE) provides final academic oversight and makes the final editorial decision.

The Editorial Office supports editors with administrative and peer-review coordination throughout the process.

Editorial Structure

JMBE's editorial structure may include:

• Editor-in-Chief (EIC)

• Deputy Editor (DE)

• Associate Editors (AEs)

• Editorial Board Members

• Editorial Office / Peer Review Coordinator

• Guest Editors for Special Issues

Editorial roles may differ in responsibility, but all editors share responsibility for maintaining the quality and integrity of the journal.

Role of the Associate Editor

Associate Editors are responsible for the academic handling of manuscripts assigned to them.

An AE normally manages a manuscript from initial academic screening through completion of peer review and submission of an editorial recommendation.

Key responsibilities include:

• assessing whether manuscripts fit the journal's scope;

• evaluating the overall scholarly relevance and methodological soundness of submissions;

• identifying appropriate and independent reviewers;

• inviting and managing reviewers;

• monitoring the peer-review process;

• evaluating reviewer reports;

• assessing revised manuscripts;

• coordinating additional review rounds where necessary;

• identifying potential conflicts of interest;

• maintaining appropriate communication with the Editorial Office;

• preparing a clear and evidence-based recommendation for the Deputy Editor.

AEs should base their recommendations on the manuscript's academic quality, relevance, originality, methodological rigor, and the peer-review record.

AEs should not make final acceptance decisions unless specifically authorized to do so under an exceptional editorial arrangement.

Initial Academic Screening

Following the Editorial Office's technical and administrative checks, manuscripts are assigned to an appropriate Associate Editor.

The AE should assess whether the manuscript:

• falls within the scope of JMBE;

• presents a meaningful scholarly contribution;

• is sufficiently developed for external peer review;

• uses appropriate methods for the stated research objectives;

• provides adequate evidence to support its conclusions; and

• meets the journal's basic academic and ethical requirements.

A manuscript may be declined without external peer review when it is clearly outside the journal's scope or does not meet the journal's minimum academic standards.

Where appropriate, AEs may request clarification or additional information before making a screening decision.

Reviewer Selection

AEs are responsible for identifying suitable reviewers with relevant expertise.

Reviewers should be selected based on:

• subject-matter expertise;

• methodological expertise where appropriate;

• independence from the authors;

• availability and willingness to review;

• absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

AEs should avoid selecting reviewers solely because they are likely to provide favorable or unfavorable recommendations.

Whenever possible, reviewers should be drawn from a range of institutions and geographic regions.

The Editorial Office or Peer Review Coordinator may assist with reviewer invitations, reminders, database searches, and communication at the AE's direction.

Peer Review Management

JMBE normally uses a single-blind peer-review model.

The AE is responsible for managing the academic aspects of the review process, while the Editorial Office supports the administrative workflow.

The AE should:

• ensure that sufficient independent reviews are obtained;

• assess the relevance and substance of reviewer reports;

• identify conflicting or insufficient reviews;

• invite additional reviewers where necessary;

• ensure that authors have an appropriate opportunity to respond to reviewer comments;

• determine whether revisions satisfactorily address substantive concerns; and

• maintain consistency across review rounds.

The number of reviewers may vary depending on the article type, subject area, review quality, and editorial circumstances.

Editorial Decisions and Recommendations

Following peer review, the AE evaluates the manuscript and provides a recommendation to the Deputy Editor.

Possible recommendations include:

• Reject

• Major Revision

• Minor Revision

• Accept

Recommendations should be supported by the manuscript, reviewer reports, and the AE's independent academic assessment.

The AE should not recommend acceptance solely because reviewers have recommended acceptance, nor reject a manuscript solely because one reviewer has recommended rejection.

Where reviewer reports are inconsistent, the AE should assess the underlying academic arguments and may seek an additional review where appropriate.

Final Academic Decision

The Deputy Editor reviews the manuscript, peer-review record, and AE recommendation before making the final academic decision.

The DE is responsible for ensuring that:

• the editorial record supports the decision;

• reviewer comments have been appropriately considered;

• editorial standards are applied consistently;

• conflicts of interest have been appropriately managed; and

• the decision is independent of commercial considerations.

The DE may agree with, modify, or reject an AE's recommendation where justified by the editorial record.

Conflicts of Interest in Final Decisions

Where the Deputy Editor has a conflict of interest with a manuscript, the DE must not make the final editorial decision.

In such cases, the final decision should be transferred to an appropriate Editorial Board member or the Editor-in-Chief, selected by the journal to ensure independent and fair handling.

The individual making the final decision should disclose and manage any relevant conflict of interest.

Editorial Decision Letters

Decision letters should be clear, professional, and based on the editorial record.

Where possible, decision letters should:

• communicate the decision clearly;

• summarize the principal reasons for the decision;

• distinguish editorial comments from reviewer comments;

• provide constructive guidance for revision where applicable; and

• avoid language that is dismissive, discriminatory, or unnecessarily adversarial.

Editors should not make promises regarding future acceptance.

Revision Handling

For revised manuscripts, the AE should assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the substantive concerns raised during peer review.

Depending on the nature of the revisions, the AE may:

• assess the revision independently;

• return the manuscript to the original reviewers;

• seek additional reviewers; or

• recommend a final decision to the DE.

Editors should avoid requesting unnecessary revisions that do not materially improve the manuscript.

Where authors disagree with reviewer comments, editors should assess the scientific or scholarly basis of the authors' response rather than requiring automatic agreement with every reviewer request.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest involving a manuscript.

Conflicts may arise from, but are not limited to:

• current or recent institutional affiliation;

• recent co-authorship;

• close personal or professional relationships;

• supervisory relationships;

• financial interests;

• competitive relationships;

• direct involvement in the research;

• other circumstances that could reasonably affect editorial independence.

Editors should not handle manuscripts where their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

When a conflict exists, the manuscript should be reassigned to another qualified editor.

Confidentiality

Editors must treat all submitted manuscripts and related materials as confidential.

Editors must not:

• disclose manuscript contents to unauthorized individuals;

• use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage;

• share reviewer identities except where permitted by journal policy;

• use manuscript materials for their own research without permission.

Confidentiality continues after the editorial process has ended.

Research Integrity and Publication Ethics

Editors are responsible for responding appropriately to concerns relating to research and publication integrity.

Potential concerns may include:

• plagiarism;

• duplicate or redundant publication;

• fabricated or falsified data;

• inappropriate image manipulation;

• authorship disputes;

• undisclosed conflicts of interest;

• citation manipulation;

• peer-review manipulation;

• inappropriate use of artificial intelligence;

• ethical approval concerns; and

• other forms of research misconduct.

Editors should not make premature allegations.

Where appropriate, concerns should be escalated to the Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board, or Publisher for further assessment in accordance with the journal's publication ethics procedures.

Similarity and Integrity Checks

The Editorial Office may conduct similarity screening and other research-integrity checks during submission and review.

Editors should review flagged cases carefully and distinguish between legitimate overlap, common technical terminology, properly cited material, and potentially inappropriate duplication.

Similarity results should not be used as the sole basis for an editorial decision without appropriate assessment.

AI-Assisted Tools

Editors must maintain human oversight of all editorial decisions.

AI-assisted tools must not be used as a substitute for independent editorial judgment.

Editors should not upload confidential manuscripts, reviewer reports, or other unpublished materials to external AI systems unless the use of such systems has been explicitly approved by the journal and appropriate confidentiality safeguards are in place.

Editors remain responsible for decisions communicated under their name.

Reviewer Confidentiality and Reviewer Conduct

Editors should protect reviewer confidentiality and should not disclose reviewer identities to authors unless permitted by the journal's review model or otherwise authorized.

Editors should also monitor reviewer conduct and address inappropriate review practices, including:

• offensive or discriminatory comments;

• conflicts of interest;

• requests for unnecessary citations;

• attempts to influence authors improperly;

• inappropriate use or disclosure of confidential information.

Reviewers who repeatedly fail to provide timely or substantive reports may be removed from the active reviewer pool.

Editorial Office and Peer Review Coordinator

The Editorial Office supports editors by managing administrative and operational aspects of the workflow.

The Editorial Office / Peer Review Coordinator may:

• perform technical and administrative checks;

• maintain manuscript records;

• issue reviewer invitations;

• send reminders and follow-up communications;

• monitor review deadlines;

• coordinate author and reviewer correspondence;

• maintain editorial databases;

• support revision and production handover; and

• prepare workflow or performance reports.

The Editorial Office does not make independent academic decisions.

Editors should communicate substantive editorial decisions through the designated journal system and workflow.

Communication with Authors and Reviewers

Editors should communicate professionally, respectfully, and consistently.

Editors should avoid:

• discriminatory or personal language;

• unsupported accusations;

• inappropriate requests for citations;

• guarantees of acceptance;

• discussion of confidential reviewer information; and

• communication that could reasonably compromise editorial independence.

Where difficult or sensitive cases arise, editors should seek guidance from the DE, EIC, Editorial Board, or Publisher as appropriate.

Special Issues

Special Issues may be proposed by editors, researchers, or other qualified academic contributors.

Special Issues should have:

• a clearly defined academic theme;

• an appropriate Guest Editor or editorial lead;

• a credible potential author and reviewer network;

• a realistic publication timeline; and

• a transparent peer-review process.

Guest Editors are subject to the same standards of research integrity, peer-review independence, confidentiality, and conflict-of-interest management as other editors.

Manuscripts submitted by a Guest Editor or members of the Guest Editor's immediate research network should be handled independently by another qualified editor.

The Editorial Office may coordinate the operational aspects of Special Issues, including invitations, reminders, submission tracking, and publication planning.

Editorial Board Members

Editorial Board members contribute to the strategic and academic development of JMBE.

Their activities may include:

• advising on journal scope and direction;

• recommending qualified editors and reviewers;

• supporting author and reviewer outreach;

• proposing Special Issues;

• promoting the journal within relevant academic communities;

• providing advice on difficult or exceptional editorial cases.

Editorial Board members are not expected to handle manuscripts unless specifically assigned to do so.

Editor Recruitment and Onboarding

New editors should receive appropriate information about:

• journal scope;

• editorial responsibilities;

• peer-review procedures;

• conflicts of interest;

• publication ethics;

• confidentiality;

• AI-related requirements;

• editorial systems and workflow.

Editors should familiarize themselves with the journal's current policies before handling manuscripts.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions must be based on academic and ethical considerations.

Editors must not allow:

• commercial interests;

• institutional pressure;

• personal relationships;

• authors' seniority or reputation;

• expected citation impact;

• nationality, gender, race, religion, or other irrelevant characteristics

to improperly influence editorial decisions.

Acceptance or rejection decisions must not be influenced by the ability or willingness of an author to pay an APC.

Recognition and Editorial Benefits

JMBE values the contributions made by editors, reviewers, and Editorial Board members.

Where applicable, eligible editors may receive benefits or recognition in accordance with the journal's current editorial appointment terms.

Editorial benefits do not affect editorial independence and must not create incentives for inappropriate manuscript handling.

Editorial Performance and Development

Editors are encouraged to contribute to the continuous improvement of the journal.

The journal may monitor editorial indicators such as:

• manuscript handling times;

• reviewer response rates;

• review completion rates;

• revision cycles;

• editorial workload;

• Special Issue activity; and

• publication quality and integrity indicators.

These indicators are used for journal management and process improvement and are not intended to replace academic judgment.

When to Seek Guidance

Editors should consult the DE, EIC, Editorial Board, or Publisher when handling:

• serious research-integrity concerns;

• complex authorship disputes;

• repeated or unresolved reviewer conflicts;

• significant conflicts of interest;

• allegations of peer-review manipulation;

• sensitive legal or ethical matters;

• cases involving editors or Editorial Board members;

• situations where the appropriate editorial action is unclear.

Editors should escalate difficult cases rather than making unsupported or irreversible decisions independently.

Core Principles for JMBE Editors

JMBE editors are expected to uphold the following principles:

Academic Independence
Decisions are based on scholarly merit and editorial policy.

Fairness
Authors and reviewers are treated consistently and respectfully.

Integrity
Potential ethical and research-integrity concerns are addressed appropriately.

Confidentiality
Unpublished manuscripts and editorial information are protected.

Transparency
Editorial procedures and conflicts of interest are managed openly and appropriately.

Professionalism
Editors communicate respectfully and maintain appropriate boundaries.

Consistency
Editorial standards are applied across manuscripts, article types, and research communities.

By accepting an editorial role at JMBE, editors agree to uphold these principles and comply with the journal's applicable policies and procedures.