Nordic Concrete Research

General

The aim of this document is to provide rules for the reviewers related to ensuring integrity and quality of the review process.

Consult the separate template on this website to report the results of a review.

Review and AI

Reviews shall only be undertaken by the appointed reviewer. The responsibilities and tasks involved in reviewing a paper can only be attributed to and performed by the human submitting the review. We do not allow the use of genAI tools in peer review due to concerns about accountability, accuracy, trustworthiness, confidentiality, copyright, privacy, and data security.

• Reviews should be written solely by the assigned reviewer. AI-generated reviews are not accountable or verifiable.
• Manuscripts under review must never be uploaded to public genAI platforms, as this may violate confidentiality agreements and intellectual property rights.
• If a reviewer suspects undisclosed genAI use in a submission, they should report it to the editor for investigation.

Conflicting and Competing Interests (COI)

See general policy document “Conflicting and Competing Interests”.

Read the examples of competing interests to determine whether these apply, either in your relationship to the content of the article or to the author (if known). If you believe your competing interests imply it is not possible for you to review the paper, please decline the review or discuss this with the editor.

Complete the COI section in the review form, example:

To declare your competing interests, provide them during the review process according to instructions received from editors. For example: “I was previously employed by the laboratory that collected this data.”

If you do not have competing interests, provide this feedback.

During review, if you suspect that the author has an undisclosed competing interest, inform the editor.

REVIEWERS – Review form & Statements

Questions to answer (check boxes)

• Does the manuscript contain new and significant information to justify publication?
• Is the title descriptive for the content of the paper?
• Does the abstract (summary) clearly and accurately describe the content of the article?
• Is the problem significant and concisely stated?
• Are the methods described comprehensively?
• Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?
• Is adequate reference made to other work in the field?
• Is the language acceptable?

Rating overall

• Excellent/Good/Average/Below/Poor

Recommendation

• Accept/Minor revision/Major revision/Reject

Would you be willing to review a revision of the manuscript?

• Yes/no

NCR Best paper award

• Based on the quality of the paper alone (additional criteria apply), should it be nominated as a candidate for the award? Yes/no

Statements

• Have you checked the review task compliance with the general policies for the journal available on this website? Yes/no
• Do you suspect any inadequate use of AI in the paper?
• Potential competing or conflicting interests (COI):
  • Do you suspect the author to have undisclosed COI? Yes/no
  • Do you as a reviewer have any such COI to declare? Yes/no
  • If yes, please explain: ……………………………………………..