Peer Review Process in the Journal of Rehabilitation in Civil Engineering
All papers submitted to the Journal of Rehabilitation in Civil Engineering (JRCE) undergo a single-blind peer-review process. The editorial decision for each article is based on an initial review by the editor and evaluation by expert reviewers. Review times may vary depending on the subject matter of the paper. Manuscripts must be original contributions, not under consideration elsewhere, and not previously published in any form. The journal's decision-making process involves the following steps:
1. Registration and Submission
The corresponding author must register on the journal’s website and provide full affiliation details for all authors. The manuscript should then be submitted in the format specified by the journal.
2. Structural Assessment
The journal director reviews the submission to ensure compliance with journal guidelines and completeness of required data and files. If necessary, the manuscript may be returned to the authors for additional information or adjustments.
3. Editor-in-Chief Assessment and Processing
The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscript's alignment with the journal’s scope, originality, and impact. This initial quality assessment may result in rejection or suggestions for revisions before proceeding further.
4. Check for Plagiarism
The manuscript is checked for plagiarism using iThenticate. If the similarity percentage exceeds 30%, the manuscript may be rejected. Otherwise, it progresses to the review phase.
5. Reviewers Suggestion and Invitation
The Editor-in-Chief invites experts in the field to review the manuscript. This may involve consulting with specialized associated editors to identify suitable reviewers. The invitation process continues until at least two reviewers agree to review the manuscript, at which point its status is updated to "under review." In certain cases, especially for complex methods or sensitive studies, additional reviewers may be invited.
Peer Review Process: Decision Phases
1. First Decision after Review
Based on the reviewers' evaluations, the journal board will make one of the following decisions:
• Acceptance: The manuscript is accepted as is, pending final editorial checks.
• Minor Revision Required: The manuscript requires minor changes before it can be accepted. Reviewers’ comments will be provided to guide the author.
• Major Revision Required: Significant revisions are needed. The manuscript will be returned to the author for substantial changes based on reviewers’ feedback. Additional reviewers may be invited if there is a conflict in the feedback.
• Rejection: The manuscript is not suitable for publication. The decision will be accompanied by reviewers' comments explaining the reasons for rejection.
2. Revision and Re-submission
Once authors receive the decision, they must revise the manuscript according to the feedback provided:
• Resubmission: Authors must resubmit the revised manuscript along with any additional data requested.
• Response to Reviewers: A detailed report addressing the reviewers' comments and questions must be provided. Authors have the right to reject any revision requests, but must offer a justification or suggest alternative changes.
3. Final Decision
After resubmission, the journal board will review the revisions:
• Satisfactory Revisions: If the revisions are deemed satisfactory, the manuscript will be accepted and sent to the publisher.
• Further Revisions: If further changes are needed, the manuscript may be sent back to the author for additional revisions.
• Final Rejection: If the revised manuscript still does not meet the journal’s standards, it may be rejected.
