Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Green Construction Technology is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, confidential, and independent peer-review process. Peer review is an essential part of the journal's quality-assurance system and is used to assess the scientific validity, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, and contribution of submitted manuscripts.

The journal normally follows a double-blind peer-review model, under which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another. The policy applies equally to Research Articles, Review Articles, Short Communications, Case Studies, and other scholarly submissions, including manuscripts submitted to special issues.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts are first examined by the editorial team to determine whether they fall within the journal's scope and meet the basic requirements for scholarly quality, originality, ethical compliance, and manuscript preparation.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, substantially incomplete, unsuitable for peer review, or inconsistent with essential publication and research-integrity requirements may be declined at this stage. This preliminary assessment is not intended to replace external peer review.

2. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that proceed to peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject, methodology, or technology addressed by the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on relevant scholarly expertise, research experience, methodological competence, and their ability to provide an impartial assessment.

The Editor remains responsible for reviewer selection. Reviewers should not have relationships or interests that could reasonably compromise their independence. The journal may use reviewers from different institutions, disciplines, and geographical regions to obtain balanced and appropriately informed assessments.

3. Double-Blind Review

The journal normally operates a double-blind review process. Authors should therefore avoid including information in the manuscript that unnecessarily identifies them, their institutions, or previous work in a manner that compromises anonymity.

Reviewers are expected not to attempt to identify the authors. If the identity of an author or reviewer becomes known inadvertently, the reviewer should notify the editorial office where this could affect the impartiality of the assessment.

4. Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a manuscript for review. Conflicts may arise from personal, professional, institutional, financial, collaborative, competitive, or other relationships with the authors or their research.

A reviewer should decline the assignment where such circumstances could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, independent judgment. If a conflict becomes apparent after accepting the assignment, the reviewer should immediately inform the Editor, who will determine whether the review should continue.

5. Author Suggestions and Requests for Reviewer Exclusion

Authors may suggest suitably qualified reviewers during submission. Such suggestions are considered at the Editor's discretion and do not guarantee that the suggested individuals will be invited. The Editor independently verifies reviewer suitability and may select reviewers from other sources.

Authors may also request that specific individuals not be invited to review their manuscript where a genuine conflict of interest, professional competition, personal relationship, or other circumstance could reasonably compromise impartiality. Any such request should be accompanied by a brief and legitimate explanation. Authors should not seek to exclude reviewers merely because they are known to hold differing academic views or may provide critical assessments.

The Editor retains full authority to decide whether an exclusion request is justified and may proceed with a reviewer despite the request where appropriate.

6. Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, discuss, or otherwise disclose manuscript content or editorial correspondence to unauthorized persons.

Unpublished information obtained through peer review must not be used for personal, academic, commercial, or competitive advantage. Reviewers should also protect the confidentiality of their review reports and should not communicate directly with authors about the manuscript unless authorized by the Editor.

7. Ethical and Research-Integrity Review

Reviewers should alert the Editor to credible concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication or falsification of data, inappropriate image manipulation, unethical research practices, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other forms of publication misconduct.

Potential misconduct should be reported confidentially to the Editor rather than investigated independently by the reviewer. Where research involves human participants, sensitive information, or other activities requiring ethical oversight, reviewers may also identify concerns regarding ethical approval or informed consent.

The journal may undertake additional checks or seek specialist advice where ethical or research-integrity concerns arise.

8. Reviewer Reports and Recommendations

Reviewer reports should be objective, evidence-based, respectful, and sufficiently detailed to assist both the Editor and authors. Reviewers should provide clear reasons for their assessment and identify specific issues requiring clarification, correction, additional analysis, or revision.

Reviewers may recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection, but the recommendation is advisory. The Editor considers the complete peer-review record and retains responsibility for the final decision.

Reviewers should not make demands unrelated to the scientific quality of the manuscript or require unnecessary citation of their own publications. Suggested references should be included only where they are genuinely relevant.

9. Revision and Re-Review

When revisions are requested, authors should provide a clear response explaining how each substantive reviewer comment has been addressed. Where an author does not accept a particular suggestion, a reasoned scientific explanation should be provided.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers, to new reviewers, or assessed directly by the Editor depending on the extent and nature of the revisions. A request for revision does not constitute a guarantee of eventual acceptance.

10. Special Issues

Manuscripts submitted to special issues are subject to the same peer-review standards and editorial requirements as regular submissions. Inclusion in a special issue does not imply acceptance or exemption from independent review.

Guest editors, special-issue editors, and other individuals involved in organizing a special issue must disclose relevant conflicts of interest. They should not participate in the editorial assessment or review of manuscripts where their involvement could compromise independence. Where necessary, the Editor may appoint an independent editor to oversee a conflicted submission.

11. Editorial Decisions

The Editor considers reviewer reports together with the manuscript's quality, relevance, ethical status, and the authors' responses to determine the appropriate editorial outcome.

Where reviewer recommendations substantially conflict, the Editor may seek an additional independent review or specialist opinion. The Editor is not required to follow any individual reviewer's recommendation and may make a decision based on the overall scholarly and ethical assessment of the submission.

12. Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant procedural error, misunderstanding of the manuscript, or demonstrable factual problem in the review process may submit a reasoned appeal to the Editor.

An appeal should identify the specific grounds and should not simply repeat arguments already considered during review. The Editor may seek an additional assessment where appropriate. The outcome of an appeal is determined by the journal after consideration of the available evidence and applicable editorial policies.

13. Final Responsibility and Editorial Independence

Peer review supports the journal's quality-control process, but the final decision regarding publication rests with the Editor or an authorized editorial decision-maker. Editorial decisions must remain independent of commercial, financial, institutional, personal, or other external pressures.

The journal is committed to ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated on their scholarly merit, methodological quality, originality, ethical integrity, and relevance to the journal, while maintaining fairness and consistency throughout the review process