Peer Review Policy

Journal: Journal of Materials for the Built Environment (JMBE)
Policy Version: 1.0
Effective Date: September 2026

1. Overview

Journal of Materials for the Built Environment (JMBE) is committed to a rigorous, fair, independent, and constructive peer-review process.

The journal uses single-blind peer review, in which reviewers are informed of the authors' identities, while reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.

Peer review is intended to help editors assess the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, relevance, and significance of submitted work, while also providing authors with constructive feedback that may improve their manuscripts.

Editorial decisions are made independently of commercial considerations, including Article Processing Charges (APCs), waivers, discounts, or an author's ability to pay.

2. Editorial Review Structure

JMBE uses a distributed editorial workflow.

The principal responsibilities are as follows:

Editorial Office / Peer Review Coordinator

The Editorial Office manages the administrative and operational aspects of peer review, including:

• manuscript processing and record management;

• reviewer invitations and reminders;

• reviewer communication;

• monitoring review deadlines;

• maintaining reviewer databases;

• coordinating revision submissions;

• supporting communication between editors, authors, and reviewers; and

• preparing workflow information for editorial oversight.

The Editorial Office does not independently determine the academic outcome of a manuscript.

Associate Editor (AE)

The Associate Editor is responsible for the academic handling of the manuscript from initial academic assessment through completion of peer review and recommendation.

The AE:

• assesses scope and academic suitability;

• identifies appropriate reviewers;

• manages the peer-review process;

• evaluates reviewer reports;

• assesses revised manuscripts;

• requests additional review where necessary; and

• provides a recommendation to the Deputy Editor.

Deputy Editor (DE)

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

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

Conflict of Interest in Final Decisions

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

The manuscript should instead be assigned to an appropriate Editorial Board member or the Editor-in-Chief who has no relevant conflict of interest.

Where the Editor-in-Chief also has a conflict of interest, the final decision should be assigned to an appropriately qualified and independent Editorial Board member or other designated editor.

3. Editorial Screening Before Peer Review

All submissions first undergo an initial technical and administrative assessment by the Editorial Office.

This may include checks for:

• submission completeness;

• required declarations;

• manuscript formatting;

• ethical requirements;

• authorship information;

• conflicts of interest;

• data availability information;

• AI disclosure, where applicable; and

• similarity or other research-integrity concerns.

Submissions that are incomplete may be returned to the authors for correction before academic assessment.

After the administrative check, the manuscript is assigned to an appropriate Associate Editor.

The AE evaluates whether the manuscript:

• falls within the journal's scope;

• presents a meaningful scholarly contribution;

• is sufficiently developed for external peer review;

• uses appropriate methods;

• provides adequate evidence for its conclusions; and

• meets the journal's minimum academic standards.

Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal's scope or do not meet minimum academic requirements may be declined without external peer review.

4. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected according to their expertise, independence, availability, and relevance to the manuscript.

Where possible, reviewers should have appropriate expertise in the subject matter or methodology of the submitted work.

Editors should consider:

• subject expertise;

• methodological expertise;

• prior relevant publications or research experience;

• independence from the authors;

• institutional relationships;

• recent co-authorship;

• personal or professional relationships; and

• other potential conflicts of interest.

Editors should not select reviewers solely because they are expected to provide favorable or unfavorable assessments.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers and may identify individuals who they believe should not review their manuscript. Such information may be considered by the editor but does not determine reviewer selection.

Suggested reviewers should be independently evaluated by the editor.

5. Number of Reviewers

JMBE normally seeks at least two independent peer-review reports for Research Articles and other research-based submissions.

The number of reviewers may vary depending on:

• article type;

• subject area;

• complexity of the study;

• quality and consistency of available reviews;

• conflicts or reviewer exclusions; and

• other editorial circumstances.

An additional reviewer may be invited when existing reports are insufficient, substantially conflicting, or do not address key aspects of the manuscript.

The absence of a particular number of reviews does not automatically determine acceptance or rejection.

6. Reviewer Invitations and Review Period

Reviewers are invited on the basis of relevant expertise and availability.

Review invitations should provide sufficient information for reviewers to determine whether they can assess the manuscript fairly.

Reviewers should normally respond to invitations promptly and complete accepted reviews within the agreed timeframe.

The Editorial Office may send reminders to reviewers who have not responded or who are approaching or exceeding the agreed deadline.

Where a review is substantially overdue, the editor may withdraw the invitation and seek another reviewer.

The journal may recognize reviewers who provide timely and substantive peer-review reports in accordance with its reviewer-recognition policy.

7. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively.

Review reports should address, where applicable:

• originality and significance;

• relevance to the journal's scope;

• scientific or scholarly rigor;

• methodological appropriateness;

• quality and interpretation of evidence;

• clarity and organization;

• adequacy of references;

• validity of conclusions;

• limitations;

• ethical or integrity concerns; and

• suitability for publication.

Reviewers should distinguish between major concerns affecting the validity of the work and minor issues that can be addressed during revision.

Reviewers should not make personal or derogatory comments about authors.

Detailed expectations for reviewers are provided in the journal's Reviewer Guidelines.

8. Confidentiality

Peer review at JMBE is confidential.

Reviewers must not:

• share manuscripts or review materials with unauthorized individuals;

• disclose their identity to authors where anonymity is required;

• use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage;

• reproduce or distribute manuscript content without permission; or

• discuss the manuscript with others without authorization.

Editors and members of the Editorial Office are also required to protect manuscript confidentiality.

Confidentiality obligations continue after the completion of the review process.

9. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose relevant conflicts of interest before participating in the review process.

A reviewer should decline an invitation where they have a conflict that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, the impartiality of their assessment.

Potential conflicts may include:

• recent co-authorship;

• current or recent institutional affiliation;

• close professional or personal relationships;

• supervisory relationships;

• financial interests;

• direct competition;

• involvement in related unpublished work; or

• other circumstances tha