Guidelines for Reviewers

The Journal of Green Construction Technology is committed to a rigorous, fair, transparent, and constructive peer-review process that supports the quality and integrity of published research. All manuscripts are evaluated by qualified reviewers selected according to their expertise, subject knowledge, and ability to provide an impartial assessment.

The journal normally uses a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another. The same principles of confidentiality, independence, and scholarly integrity apply to all submissions, including manuscripts considered for special issues.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their relevant academic or professional expertise, research experience, methodological knowledge, and familiarity with the subject of the manuscript. The journal seeks reviewers who can provide an objective assessment and who have no circumstances that could compromise their independence.

The Editor may consider reviewer recommendations provided by authors, but such suggestions are not binding and do not guarantee selection. The Editor remains responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers and may reject suggested reviewers where independence, expertise, or other concerns arise.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers should assess manuscripts objectively, independently, and constructively. Their role is to help the Editor determine whether a manuscript meets the journal's standards while providing authors with useful comments that can improve the quality and clarity of their work.

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript on its scholarly and technical merits. Personal criticism or language that is dismissive, hostile, or inappropriate should be avoided.

Reviewers should complete reviews within the agreed timeframe. If additional time is required, they should inform the editorial office promptly. Reviewers who cannot provide an appropriate assessment should decline the invitation rather than accepting and subsequently delaying the review.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, share, copy, distribute, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal or professional purposes. Manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and other confidential material should be securely handled throughout the review process.

Conflicts of Interest and Independence

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review. A conflict may arise from financial, professional, institutional, personal, collaborative, competitive, or other relationships that could reasonably affect the reviewer's impartiality. Reviewers should decline the assignment where they have a significant conflict that prevents an independent assessment. If a potential conflict becomes apparent after accepting the review, the reviewer should immediately notify the Editor and allow the Editor to determine whether the review should proceed.

Scope and Relevance

Reviewers should first consider whether the manuscript falls within the journal's aims and scope and whether it addresses a meaningful issue in green construction technology, sustainable construction, materials, infrastructure, energy efficiency, circularity, climate resilience, or related fields.

The assessment should consider the manuscript's relevance to the journal rather than requiring every submission to address all aspects of sustainability. Interdisciplinary research should be evaluated fairly, with appropriate consideration of the methods and standards of the relevant disciplines.

Scientific and Technical Assessment

Reviewers should consider, as applicable:
originality and significance of the research;
clarity of the research question, objectives, or hypotheses;
adequacy and appropriateness of the methodology;
quality and reliability of data, materials, experiments, models, or simulations;
validity of analysis and interpretation;
appropriate use of statistical or computational methods;
clarity and consistency of results;
relationship of the findings to existing literature;
evidence supporting the conclusions;
relevance to sustainable construction and green technology;
environmental, energy, resource-efficiency, or circularity claims where applicable;
practical or technological significance; and
overall quality and clarity of the work.

For studies involving construction materials, technologies, energy systems, environmental performance, or infrastructure, reviewers should consider whether the reported claims are adequately supported by the evidence and whether limitations have been appropriately acknowledged.

Research Ethics and Publication Integrity

Reviewers should alert the Editor if they identify serious concerns relating to plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, manipulated images, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts, unethical research practices, or other potential publication misconduct.

Reviewers should not independently investigate or contact third parties regarding suspected misconduct. Concerns should be communicated confidentially to the Editor, preferably with specific evidence or a clear explanation of the concern.

Where research involves human participants,  sensitive information, or other regulated activities, reviewers may consider whether appropriate ethical approval and consent information has been provided where relevant.

Figures, Tables, Data and Supporting Information

Reviewers should assess whether tables, figures, datasets, supplementary files, mathematical models, experimental results, or other supporting materials are appropriate and sufficiently presented to support the manuscript's conclusions.

Where the study depends substantially on data, software, modelling, experimental procedures, or other resources, reviewers should consider whether sufficient methodological information has been provided to allow the work to be properly evaluated and, where reasonably possible, reproduced.

Reviewer Reports

Reviewer comments should be specific, evidence-based, and constructive. A useful report should distinguish between major issues that affect the validity, originality, or interpretation of the research and minor issues involving presentation, terminology, references, formatting, or clarity.

Reviewers should explain the basis of their recommendations and identify specific sections, figures, tables, analyses, or statements where clarification or correction is required. Suggested revisions should be reasonable and directly relevant to the quality of the manuscript.

Reviewers should not require authors to cite the reviewer's own publications unless those references are genuinely relevant and necessary to the scholarly discussion.

Recommendation to the Editor

After completing the assessment, reviewers provide a recommendation to the Editor. Possible recommendations normally include:

Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject

The recommendation should be consistent with the comments provided in the review. The Editor is not required to follow a reviewer's recommendation and retains responsibility for the final editorial decision.

Revised Manuscripts

When a manuscript is returned for revision, reviewers may be invited to evaluate the revised version. The second-round review should focus particularly on whether the authors have adequately addressed the substantive concerns raised during the initial review.

Reviewers should recognize that authors may reasonably disagree with individual suggestions. Where an author provides a scientifically justified response to a comment rather than making the requested change, reviewers should evaluate the response on its merits.

Special Issues and Guest-Edited Submissions

Manuscripts submitted to special issues are subject to the same standards of peer review, confidentiality, research integrity, and editorial independence as regular submissions. Participation in a special issue does not guarantee acceptance or reduce the journal's review requirements.

Guest editors and reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and should not participate in the evaluation of manuscripts where their independence may reasonably be questioned. Where necessary, the journal may appoint an independent editor to manage a conflicted submission.

Reviewer Anonymity and Editorial Independence

The journal normally maintains reviewer anonymity throughout the double-blind review process. Reviewers should not attempt to identify authors or communicate their identity to authors.

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly quality, originality, validity, relevance, and ethical integrity of the manuscript. Reviewers must not seek to influence editorial decisions for personal, institutional, competitive, or commercial reasons.

Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished manuscript content into publicly accessible generative AI systems or other external tools where confidentiality cannot be assured. Reviewers remain responsible for the confidentiality and integrity of the material provided to them.

AI tools should not replace the reviewer's own scholarly judgment. If an AI-assisted tool is permitted or used for limited purposes, reviewers should ensure that the manuscript's confidential information is protected and that the final review represents their own independent assessment.

Editorial Oversight and Final Decision

The Editor may seek additional reviews, clarification, or specialist assessment where reviewer recommendations substantially differ or where a manuscript raises complex methodological, ethical, or technical issues.

The final decision rests with the Editor or authorized editorial decision-maker. Peer review is an important component of the journal's quality-control process, but acceptance is determined through editorial assessment of the complete record, including the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, and any relevant ethical or publication-integrity considerations.

Reviewer Recognition

The journal values the contribution of reviewers to maintaining scholarly quality. Where appropriate and consistent with confidentiality requirements, the journal may provide formal acknowledgement or certificates of review. Such recognition however, does not affect the independence of the review process or editorial decisions.