Editorial Process

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, efficient, and transparent editorial process.

All submissions undergo an initial administrative and academic assessment followed, where appropriate, by independent external peer review.

JMBE operates a structured editorial workflow in which:

• the Editorial Office / Peer Review Coordinator manages administrative and operational aspects of manuscript processing;

• the Associate Editor (AE) is responsible for the academic handling of the manuscript through peer review and prepares an editorial recommendation;

• the Deputy Editor (DE) reviews the complete editorial record and makes the final academic decision; and

• the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) provides overall editorial oversight and may assume decision-making responsibility where required by journal policy or where a conflict of interest arises.

2. Editorial Workflow

Manuscript Submission
↓
Technical and Administrative Check
↓
Associate Editor Assignment
↓
Initial Academic Assessment
↓
External Peer Review
↓
Review and Revision
↓
Associate Editor Recommendation
↓
Deputy Editor Final Decision
↓
Production and Publication

Where the Deputy Editor has a conflict of interest, the final decision is transferred to an appropriate independent Editorial Board member or the Editor-in-Chief.

3. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the journal's online submission system.

All submissions must comply with the journal's:

• Author Instructions;

• Publication Ethics Policy;

• Peer Review Policy;

• AI Policy;

• Data Availability requirements; and

• other applicable journal policies.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that all required files, declarations, and supporting information are provided at the time of submission.

4. Technical and Administrative Check

Following submission, the Editorial Office conducts an initial technical and administrative assessment.

This may include verification of:

• manuscript completeness;

• article type;

• basic formatting requirements;

• author and affiliation information;

• conflict of interest declarations;

• Data Availability Statement;

• ethical declarations and approvals where applicable;

• AI-use disclosure where applicable;

• figures, tables, and supplementary files; and

• similarity or other research-integrity screening requirements.

Manuscripts that are incomplete or do not meet basic submission requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before academic assessment.

The Editorial Office does not make independent academic decisions at this stage.

5. Associate Editor Assignment

A manuscript that passes the initial administrative check is assigned to an Associate Editor with appropriate subject expertise.

The assignment considers:

• relevance to the manuscript's subject;

• the AE's area of expertise;

• workload and availability; and

• potential conflicts of interest.

An editor with a relevant conflict of interest should not participate in the handling of the manuscript.

6. Initial Academic Assessment

The Associate Editor conducts the initial academic assessment.

The AE considers:

• fit with the journal's scope;

• scientific or scholarly relevance;

• originality and potential contribution;

• methodological soundness;

• adequacy of supporting evidence;

• clarity of the research objectives and conclusions; and

• suitability for external peer review.

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.

A desk rejection at this stage should be based on clear academic or editorial grounds and should not be based on an expectation of APC payment or other commercial considerations.

7. Reviewer Selection

For manuscripts considered suitable for peer review, the Associate Editor identifies appropriate independent reviewers.

Reviewer selection should consider:

• relevant subject expertise;

• methodological expertise where appropriate;

• publication or research experience;

• independence from the authors;

• potential conflicts of interest; and

• availability.

The Editorial Office / Peer Review Coordinator may assist with reviewer searches, invitations, reminders, and administrative communication.

The AE remains responsible for the academic appropriateness of reviewer selection.

Authors may suggest reviewers or identify individuals who should not review their manuscript. Such suggestions may be considered by the editor but do not determine reviewer selection.

8. External Peer Review

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

The journal uses a single-blind peer-review model:

• reviewers are informed of the authors' identities;

• authors are not informed of reviewer identities.

Additional reviewers may be invited when:

• reviewer reports conflict substantially;

• specialist expertise is required;

• a review is insufficiently informative;

• important methodological or ethical questions remain unresolved; or

• the editor considers additional independent assessment necessary.

The number of reviewers may therefore vary depending on the circumstances of the manuscript.

9. Review Management

The Associate Editor oversees the academic aspects of peer review.

The Editorial Office / Peer Review Coordinator manages the operational workflow, including:

• reviewer invitations;

• reviewer reminders;

• review deadlines;

• reviewer correspondence;

• submission of reviewer reports;

• revision tracking; and

• communication of editorial instructions.

Reviewers are normally asked to provide their reports within the timeframe communicated in the review invitation.

The journal aims to maintain an efficient review process, but actual processing times may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the need for additional assessment.

10. Indicative Editorial Timelines

JMBE aims to provide an efficient and predictable editorial process.

Indicative targets are:

These are editorial targets rather than guarantees.

Processing may take longer when reviewers decline invitations, additional reviewers are required, extensive revisions are needed, or ethical or methodological issues require further assessment.

11. Evaluation of Reviewer Reports

The Associate Editor evaluates reviewer reports in the context of the manuscript as a whole.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not automatically determine the editorial outcome.

The AE should consider:

• the substance and validity of reviewer comments;

• consistency between reviewer reports;

• methodological and scientific concerns;

• the authors' responses;

• the AE's independent academic assessment; and

• the overall suitability of the manuscript for publication.

Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the AE may request an additional review, clarification, or further revision.

12. Revision

Where revision is appropriate, authors will be asked to respond to the reviewers' substantive comments and revise the manuscript accordingly.

Authors should provide a clear response indicating how major comments have been addressed.

Depending on the extent of the revision, a revised manuscript may:

• be assessed directly by the AE;

• be returned to the original reviewers;

• be sent to additional reviewers; or

• undergo a combination of these processes.

The AE determines the appropriate review route and then provides a recommendation to the DE.

13. Associate Editor Recommendation

After completing the relevant peer-review and revision process, the AE provides an editorial recommendation to the Deputy Editor.

Possible recommendations include:

• Reject

• Major Revision

• Minor Revision

• Accept

The recommendation should be supported by:

• the manuscript;

• reviewer reports;

• author responses;

• the AE's independent assessment; and

• applicable journal policies.

The AE should explain the principal academic reasons supporting the recommendation where appropriate.

14. Deputy Editor Final Decision

The Deputy Editor reviews the complete editorial record, including:

• the manuscript;

• reviewer reports;

• author responses;

• revised versions;

• the AE's recommendation; and

• relevant ethical or editorial considerations.

The DE then makes the final academic decision.

The DE may:

• agree with the AE recommendation;

• request further review;

• request additional revision;

• seek clarification from the authors;

• modify the recommended outcome; or

• make another decision justified by the editorial record.

Possible final decisions are:

Accept

The manuscript is accepted for publication and proceeds to production.

Minor Revision

Limited revisions are required before a final decision can be made.

Major Revision

Substantial revisions, additional analysis, clarification, or evidence are required before further consideration.

Reject

The manuscript is not suitable for publication in JMBE.

15. Conflicts of Interest in Editorial Decisions

Editors must not make decisions on manuscripts where they have a relevant conflict of interest.

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

The manuscript will instead be assigned to:

• an appropriate independent Editorial Board member; or

• the Editor-in-Chief,

provided that the selected individual has no relevant conflict of interest.

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

The alternative decision-maker will review the editorial record independently and make the final academic decision.

16. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that a significant factual, procedural, or policy-related error materially affected the decision.

Appeals should normally be submitted within 30 days of the decision and must provide substantive reasons and relevant supporting information.

An appeal should not simply repeat arguments already considered during the original review process.

Where reasonably possible, an appeal will be reviewed by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision.

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated independent Editorial Board member may oversee the appeal where appropriate.

The outcome of an appeal is normally final.

17. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on:

• scientific or scholarly merit;

• originality;

• methodological rigor;

• relevance to the journal;

• integrity of the research; and

• compliance with applicable policies.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by:

• APC payment or waiver status;

• institutional prestige;

• author seniority;

• nationality or geographic location;

• commercial relationships;

• expected citation performance; or

• other irrelevant considerations.

The ability or willingness of an author to pay an APC must not influence the editorial outcome.

18. Research Integrity Concerns

If potential research-integrity or publication-ethics concerns are identified during editorial assessment or peer review, the editorial process may be paused while the matter is assessed.

Concerns may include:

• plagiarism;

• duplicate submission or publication;

• fabrication or falsification;

• inappropriate image or data manipulation;

• authorship disputes;

• undisclosed conflicts of interest;

• citation manipulation;

• peer-review manipulation; or

• inappropriate use of AI-assisted tools.

Such matters will be handled in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics Policy and Research Misconduct Policy.

19. Production and Publication

Once a manuscript has received final acceptance, it is transferred to production.

Production may include:

• copyediting;

• typesetting;

• figure and table checking;

• XML and metadata preparation;

• author proof review;

• final corrections; and

• online publication.

Authors will have an opportunity to review the publication proof and should respond promptly to production queries.

Each published article receives a DOI through Crossref.

20. Post-Acceptance Concerns

Acceptance does not prevent the journal from taking action if serious concerns arise before publication.

Where credible evidence of research or publication misconduct is identified after acceptance, publication may be delayed while the issue is assessed.

Where concerns arise after publication, JMBE may publish a correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction in accordance with its Corrections and Retractions Policy.

21. Editorial Office Responsibilities

The Editorial Office supports the implementation of the editorial process but does not independently make academic decisions.

The Editorial Office / Peer Review Coordinator is responsible for maintaining an efficient workflow and may:

• monitor manuscript status;

• communicate with authors and reviewers;

• issue reviewer invitations and reminders;

• maintain editorial records;

• monitor deadlines;

• coordinate revisions;

• assist editors with system and workflow issues; and

• support production handover.

The Editorial Office may escalate unusual, sensitive, or unresolved cases to the AE, DE, EIC, Editorial Board, or Publisher as appropriate.

22. Publisher's Role

The Publisher provides the infrastructure and operational support required for publication.

The Publisher may oversee:

• publishing systems;

• production;

• publication schedules;

• journal infrastructure;

• financial and administrative arrangements;

• staff support; and

• compliance with publishing policies.

The Publisher does not make individual academic acceptance or rejection decisions and does not override editorial decisions on the basis of commercial considerations.

23. Continuous Process Improvement

JMBE may periodically review its editorial procedures to improve:

• editorial efficiency;

• reviewer experience;

• transparency;

• consistency;

• research integrity; and

• author experience.

The journal may monitor operational indicators such as submission volume, review times, reviewer response rates, revision cycles, and editorial workload.

Such indicators are used for process improvement and journal management and do not replace academic judgment.

24. Contact

Questions regarding manuscript processing or editorial procedures may be directed to:

Editorial Office
Journal of Materials for the Built Environment (JMBE)
Sunlit Grove Publishing
Email: contact@sunlitpub.com