Peer Review Policy

At the Journal of Sustainable Built Environment (JSBE), we uphold rigorous academic standards through a double-anonymous peer review process, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review to maintain fairness and objectivity.

Review Process

  1. Submission and Initial Screening
    • All submissions are assessed by the editorial team to ensure alignment with the journal’s scope and compliance with submission guidelines.
    • Manuscripts that fail to meet basic requirements (e.g., formatting, originality) or fall outside the journal’s scope may be returned to authors without review.
  2. Assignment of Reviewers
    • Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.
    • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, absence of conflicts of interest, and a commitment to the confidentiality of the review process.
  3. Double-Anonymous Review
    • Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, and authors’ identities are concealed from reviewers.
    • Authors must remove any identifying information from their manuscripts (e.g., names, affiliations, acknowledgments) before submission. The editorial office facilitates anonymization where necessary.
  4. Review Criteria
    Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
    • Originality: The novelty and contribution of the work to the field.
    • Scientific Rigor: The robustness of the methodology, analysis, and interpretation.
    • Relevance: The significance of the research to the journal’s focus on urban sustainability.
    • Clarity: The coherence, organization, and readability of the manuscript.
    • Ethical Standards: Compliance with ethical guidelines, including proper citation practices and research integrity.
  5. Reviewer Recommendations
    Reviewers submit one of the following recommendations:
    • Accept without revisions
    • Minor revisions required
    • Major revisions required
    • Reject
  6. Editorial Decision
    • The editorial team considers reviewers’ comments and recommendations to make the final decision on acceptance, revision, or rejection.
    • Authors are provided with constructive feedback to improve their manuscript, even in cases of rejection.
  7. Revisions and Re-review
    • Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the original reviewers (where possible) or new reviewers if needed.
    • Authors must include a detailed response letter addressing reviewers’ comments in their resubmission.

Peer Review Timeline

We aim to complete the initial review within 4-6 weeks of submission. However, timelines may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript and reviewer availability.

Reviewer Ethics and Confidentiality

  • Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
  • Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents and must not be shared or discussed outside the review process.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision or raise concerns about the review process may contact the editorial office with a detailed explanation. Appeals are handled by senior editors or external reviewers, ensuring transparency and fairness.