Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines | NG Civil Engineering

1. The Refereeing System

1.1. Duties of Referees

  • Maintain Quality: Assist the editor in maintaining the quality of the papers published in NG

    Civil Engineering.

  • Constructive Criticism: Provide authors with constructive feedback to improve their manuscripts.

  • Expertise Recognition: Referees are selected based on their authoritative scientific work in relevant fields.

  • Independent Reviews: Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent referees. Disagreements are resolved by consulting a third referee if necessary.

  • Timely Response: Referees are expected to respond to the editor’s request within a specified period (typically 7 days). If unable to meet this deadline, referees should inform the editor immediately to allow for a timely review process.

1.2. Confidentiality and Anonymity

  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Referees must keep unpublished data and ideas confidential and secure.

  • Anonymity: The referee’s identity remains anonymous throughout the process to ensure unbiased evaluations.

2. Identifying and Selecting Appropriate Reviewers

2.1. Qualities of a Good Reviewer

  • Expertise: Proficiency in one or more areas covered by the manuscript.

  • Objectivity: Ability to evaluate the manuscript without bias.

  • No Conflicts of Interest: Referees should disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline invitations if they cannot provide a fair review.

  • Good Judgment: Ability to assess the quality, importance, and novelty of the research.

  • Clear Thinking: Capable of logical and clear analysis.

  • Writing Skills: Ability to provide a well-written critique.

  • Accuracy: Ensure that the review is accurate and reliable.

  • Timeliness: Ability to complete the review within the allotted time frame.

2.2. Database of Reviewers

  • Maintenance: The editor maintains a database of suitably qualified peer reviewers.

  • Performance Monitoring: The editor objectively monitors the performance of reviewers, recording the quality and timeliness of their reviews. Poor quality or abusive reviews are not tolerated.

3. A Fair Peer-Review Process

3.1. Minimizing Bias

  • Blinded Review: The peer-review system is blinded to minimize bias.

  • Multiple Reviewers: Research and review articles undergo peer review by multiple referees.

  • Consistent Standards: The same standards are applied across all peer-review processes.

  • Confidentiality: Discussions between authors, editors, and reviewers remain confidential unless consent is given by all parties or exceptional circumstances arise.

3.2. Editorial Independence

  • Unbiased Decisions: Editors make decisions independently without external pressure.

  • Conflict of Interest: Editors and editorial board members are excluded from decisions regarding their own work.

4. Authors’ Right to Appeal

4.1. Appeal Process

  • Mediation: The editor mediates exchanges between authors and reviewers during the peer-review process.

  • Additional Reviews: If agreement cannot be reached, additional peer reviewers may be invited.

  • Final Decision: The editor’s decision, in consultation with the editorial board, is final.

5. Checklists for Reviewers

5.1. Scientific Focus and Standards

  • Importance and Novelty: Is the work important and novel?

  • Title and Abstract: Does the title reflect the content appropriately? Does the abstract accurately describe the content?

  • Objectives: Are the objectives clearly stated?

  • Methods and Experiments: Are the materials, methods, and experimental models appropriate?

5.2. Editorial and Formatting

  • Length and Structure: Does the paper adhere to the length and structure guidelines provided in the author’s guidelines?

  • Writing Quality: Is the writing clear, accurate, and free of grammatical errors?

6. Writing the Comments

6.1. Constructive Feedback

  • Clear and Concise: Comments should be clear, concise, and accurate.

  • Guidance for Authors: Provide guidance for authors to improve their manuscript, including suggestions for additional data or experiments.

6.2. Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations

  • Confidentiality: Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and review process.

  • Avoid Misuse: Do not use the information in the manuscript for personal gain or in your own research.