Peer Review Policy

NG Civil Engineering (NGCE) follows a double-blind peer review process to ensure the highest standards of scholarly publishing. In this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential in order to promote fairness, objectivity, and unbiased evaluation of submitted manuscripts. NGCE’s current journal information already states that submissions are evaluated through a double-blind peer review process.

Review Process

1. Initial Screening
All submitted manuscripts are first reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editorial team member to assess their relevance to the journal’s scope, originality, technical quality, and compliance with the journal’s formatting and submission requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet the basic editorial criteria may be returned to the authors before external review. This reflects the NGCE journal scope and editorial screening expectations described on the journal site.

2. Plagiarism Check
Manuscripts are screened for originality using plagiarism detection tools before being sent for peer review. Submissions found to contain unacceptable similarity, plagiarism, or redundant publication may be rejected at this stage in accordance with the journal’s originality requirements. NGCE’s submissions guidance currently mentions plagiarism screening tools and a similarity threshold.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

  • Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is sent to at least two independent expert reviewers in the relevant subject area.

  • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript on the basis of originality, technical soundness, methodological rigor, significance of findings, clarity of presentation, relevance to civil engineering research and practice, and overall contribution to the field.

  • Reviewer comments and recommendations are communicated to the authors while maintaining the anonymity of both authors and reviewers throughout the process.

  • Where necessary, the editorial office may send revised manuscripts for further review. This structure closely follows the NGAS peer review page while being adapted to NGCE’s civil engineering focus.

4. Editorial Decision
Based on reviewer reports and editorial assessment, the final decision on a manuscript may be one of the following:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor makes the final decision after considering reviewer recommendations, the quality of revisions, and the overall suitability of the manuscript for the journal. This mirrors the decision language already used on the NGAS peer review page.

Timeline

The average time from submission to first decision is 15 days. The overall publication timeline may vary depending on the number of review rounds, the responsiveness of reviewers and authors, and the extent of revisions required before final acceptance. This timeline matches the NGAS peer review page structure and can be used for consistency across your journals if that is your preferred policy presentation.

Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers are expected to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity and professional ethics. Reviewers should:

  • treat manuscripts as confidential documents;

  • review submissions objectively and constructively;

  • avoid personal criticism of authors;

  • disclose any conflict of interest;

  • decline review if they are not qualified or unable to complete the review in a timely manner.

These principles support a fair and transparent peer review system and are consistent with the journal’s commitment to maintaining quality and editorial integrity. NGAS already presents a shorter reviewer ethics statement, and this version expands it slightly while staying in the same style.