Civil and Environmental Engineering

1. Introduction

Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) values the essential contribution of reviewers to maintaining the scientific quality, integrity, and credibility of published research.

The journal applies a single-blind peer review process and relies on independent expert reviewers to evaluate submitted manuscripts objectively, fairly, and professionally.

Reviewer evaluations support:

• editorial decision-making,
• scientific quality assurance,
• improvement of manuscript quality,
• integrity of scholarly publishing.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• provide objective and constructive evaluations,
• assess manuscripts within their field of expertise,
• maintain professional standards and scientific integrity,
• support fair and unbiased peer review,
• provide clear and sufficiently detailed comments.

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of scientific merit and relevance to the journal scope.

3. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

• share manuscripts,
• distribute manuscript content,
• discuss submissions with unauthorized persons,
• use unpublished materials for personal or professional advantage.

Confidentiality obligations apply before, during, and after completion of the review process.

4. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline review invitations where conflicts of interest may arise due to:

• recent scientific collaboration,
• institutional affiliation,
• competitive relationships,
• financial interests,
• personal relationships with the authors.

If reviewers identify a potential conflict after accepting the review assignment, they should immediately notify the Editorial Office.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers are encouraged to evaluate manuscripts with respect to:

• originality and novelty,
• scientific significance,
• methodological rigor,
• technical quality,
• validity of results and conclusions,
• clarity of presentation,
• adequacy of references,
• ethical integrity,
• relevance to the journal scope.

Reviewers should provide constructive recommendations intended to improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

6. Review Report Preparation

Reviewer comments should:

• be objective and respectful,
• provide scientific justification where possible,
• clearly identify strengths and weaknesses,
• distinguish major and minor concerns,
• avoid personal criticism of the authors.

Recommendations should be supported by clear reasoning.

Where relevant, reviewers are encouraged to identify:

• missing references,
• methodological limitations,
• unclear interpretations,
• ethical concerns,
• possible overlap with previously published work.

7. Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should inform the Editorial Office if they suspect:

• plagiarism,
• duplicate publication,
• data fabrication or falsification,
• image manipulation,
• citation manipulation,
• unethical research practices,
• authorship irregularities.

Ethical concerns should be communicated confidentially to the Editorial Office.

8. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished materials into publicly accessible AI tools or external systems that may compromise manuscript confidentiality or intellectual property.

Any use of AI-assisted technologies during peer review must not replace independent scientific judgment or compromise confidentiality obligations.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content and quality of their review reports.

9. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete reviews within the requested timeframe.

If reviewers:

• are unable to complete the review on time,
• lack sufficient expertise,
• or cannot provide an objective evaluation,

they should promptly inform the Editorial Office.

10. Editorial Communication

All reviewer communication should be conducted through the journal’s editorial management system or official editorial communication channels.

Reviewer identities remain confidential within the single-blind peer review model applied by the journal.

The Editorial Office appreciates the valuable contribution of reviewers to maintaining the scientific quality and integrity of Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE).