Instructions for Reviewers
Resilience and Reuse in the Built Environment has established instructions for reviewers to simplify the review process, make the work of reviewers easier, and ensure compliance with high standards of double-blind peer review. Based on these instructions and requirements, the journal ensures a robust and fair review process for all submitted manuscripts, with the goal of publishing high-quality articles. By following the COPE Core practices in publishing scholarly literature and the COPE Guidelines on publication ethics, the journal secures the integrity of the peer review process and the conduct of all participants (including the Editorial Board, reviewers, and authors).
Resilience and Reuse in the Built Environment greatly appreciates the time and effort that reviewers devote to manuscripts. Therefore, the Editorial Board makes every effort to facilitate their work procedurally and to formally express gratitude for the work done. To ensure efficiency, the Editorial Board and the handling Editor communicate with reviewers directly via email and are available to them at any time.
The handling Editor looks for experts in the field of the submitted manuscript and seeks their acceptance to review. A minimum criterion to conduct a review is to gather two or more independent experts in the field of the submitted manuscript. For interdisciplinary research, the handling Editor will ensure the necessary number of reviewers to cover all aspects of the research.
The journal welcomes open requests from reviewers. If the journal receives a manuscript in a reviewer’s field and there is no conflict of interest, that reviewer will be entrusted with the review.
Reviewers are required to follow these instructions, read the Reviewers’ Conduct Policy to behave accordingly, and apply the highest ethical and scientific standards when evaluating manuscripts. Additionally, reviewers should read the Writing and Formatting requirements listed in the Instructions for Authors to evaluate the manuscript in detail. All of the above and additional requirements are listed in the review form that reviewers receive upon acceptance of the manuscript for review.
Key Requirements and Rights
Reviewer Requirements
- Scientific Evaluation: Assess if the title is appropriate, the abstract is brief yet relevant, and the keywords reflect the essence of the manuscript. Verify that the paper follows the required structural standards based on its manuscript type:
- For Research Articles, ensure it follows the IMRaD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion).
- For Review Articles, ensure a comprehensive, systematic, or structured overview of the research area.
- For Case Studies check for clear project details, technical challenges, innovative engineering solutions, and practical lessons learned, supported by drawings and field data.
- Content Scrutiny: Ensure the introduction provides sufficient background with relevant references. Check that the research design and methodology are clearly defined, the results are clear, and the conclusions are fully supported by the data.
- Manuscript Type Alignment: Confirm that research papers present original, replicable results. For review papers, ensure they provide a comprehensive overview of the research area with original analyses and clear future perspectives.
- Timeliness: Provide an objective, unbiased review within the specified timeframe.
Reviewer Rights
- Revision Requests: The right to return the manuscript to the authors for revision as many times as necessary to meet the highest scientific standards.
- Editorial Decisions: The right to recommend accepting the manuscript in its present form, accepting it after minor revision, reconsidering it after major revision, or rejecting it.
- Feedback: The right to provide additional comments and suggestions for both the authors and the handling Editor.
- Anonymity: The right to remain anonymous throughout the double-blind peer review process.
- Copyright: Reviewers retain the copyright to their reviews but must agree not to disclose them before the manuscript is published.
- Recognition: The right to receive an official certificate for the completed review.
Reviewers are free to contact the Managing Editor at editorial.rrbe@sqripta.com for any reason involving the review and are required to notify the Managing Editor of any ethical issues, inappropriate conduct, copyright disputes, plagiarism, conflicts of interest, figure or data fabrication, duplicate submission, etc.