Reviewer Guidelines

Journal of Materials for the Built Environment (JMBE) appreciates the contribution of reviewers who help maintain the quality, integrity, and reliability of published research.

Peer reviewers provide independent expert assessments that support editorial decision-making and help authors improve their manuscripts.

JMBE uses a single-blind peer-review model. Reviewers are informed of the authors' identities, while reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.

By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to treat the manuscript and all related information as confidential.

1. Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Reviewers should consider whether they have:

• appropriate expertise to evaluate the manuscript;

• sufficient time to complete the review within the requested period;

• no relevant conflict of interest; and

• the ability to provide an objective and constructive assessment.

Reviewers should decline the invitation when they cannot provide an independent and timely review.

Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed to the editor before accepting the review.

2. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

• share the manuscript or review materials with others without authorization;

• disclose the manuscript's content to unauthorized individuals;

• use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage;

• copy, distribute, or retain the manuscript for purposes unrelated to the review;

• discuss the manuscript or its findings with the authors; or

• upload confidential manuscript content, figures, datasets, or reviewer materials to external AI systems in ways that may compromise confidentiality.

These confidentiality obligations continue after the review has been completed.

3. Purpose of Peer Review

The purpose of peer review is to help editors assess whether a manuscript meets the journal's academic standards and to provide authors with constructive feedback.

Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on its:

• originality;

• scientific or scholarly contribution;

• methodological rigor;

• relevance to JMBE;

• quality and reliability of evidence;

• clarity of presentation;

• validity of conclusions; and

• overall suitability for publication.

Reviewers should distinguish between major issues that affect the validity or contribution of the work and minor issues that can be addressed through revision.

4. Scope and Relevance to JMBE

JMBE is an interdisciplinary journal connecting:

Materials × Buildings × Built Environment

Reviewers should therefore consider not only whether the materials research is technically sound, but also whether the manuscript demonstrates a meaningful connection to buildings, construction, architecture, environmental performance, infrastructure, or the wider built environment.

Depending on the subject of the manuscript, relevant connections may include:

• material development for building applications;

• material performance within buildings or construction systems;

• architectural integration;

• construction and fabrication;

• building environmental performance;

• sustainability and circularity;

• infrastructure and public environments;

• digital construction and material technologies;

• adaptation, resilience, or retrofit; and

• human or environmental outcomes related to material systems.

A manuscript does not need to address all of these dimensions. Reviewers should assess the relevance of the particular research question and its contribution within the journal's scope.

5. Scientific and Scholarly Quality

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript:

• presents a clearly defined research question or objective;

• uses appropriate methods;

• provides sufficient methodological detail;

• presents results accurately;

• uses appropriate statistical, experimental, computational, or analytical methods where relevant;

• supports its conclusions with adequate evidence;

• acknowledges important limitations;

• engages appropriately with relevant literature; and

• makes a meaningful contribution to the field.

For interdisciplinary studies, reviewers should also consider whether the connections between disciplines are substantive rather than merely mentioned.

6. Materials and Technical Assessment

Where applicable, reviewers should assess the treatment of materials and material systems, including:

• material composition and characterization;

• processing or fabrication methods;

• material properties;

• experimental design;

• performance evaluation;

• durability and service-life considerations;

• environmental exposure;

• structural or functional behavior;

• reproducibility of methods; and

• comparison with appropriate reference materials or systems.

Reviewers should assess the technical evidence in relation to the manuscript's stated research objectives.

7. Building, Architectural, and Built-Environment Applications

Where manuscripts address building or built-environment applications, reviewers should consider whether:

• the application context is adequately described;

• the material or technology is appropriate for the stated use;

• relevant performance requirements are considered;

• the relationship between material properties and building outcomes is sufficiently demonstrated;

• practical limitations are acknowledged; and

• claims about real-world application are adequately supported.

For architecture, environmental design, urban, landscape, or other built-environment studies, reviewers should assess whether the material dimension is sufficiently meaningful to justify publication in JMBE.

8. Methodology and Reproducibility

Reviewers should consider whether the methods are sufficiently detailed to allow qualified researchers to understand and, where appropriate, reproduce the work.

Reviewers may comment on:

• experimental design;

• sample preparation;

• measurement procedures;

• computational methods;

• modelling assumptions;

• boundary conditions;

• datasets;

• statistical procedures;

• validation methods; and

• relevant standards or protocols.

Where data, code, supplementary materials, or other supporting information are necessary to evaluate the study, reviewers may recommend that the authors provide them where appropriate.

9. Results and Interpretation

Reviewers should assess whether the results are presented clearly and interpreted appropriately.

Reviewers should consider:

• whether the evidence supports the conclusions;

• whether alternative interpretations should be addressed;

• whether important results have been omitted;

• whether uncertainty is appropriately considered;

• whether limitations are acknowled