Reviewer Guidelines

NG Civil Engineering (NGCE) values the contribution of reviewers in maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of published research. Peer review is a central part of the journal’s editorial process, and reviewers are expected to provide fair, objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

1. The Peer Review System

NG Civil Engineering follows a double-blind peer review process. In this system, the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process in order to support impartial evaluation.

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. If reviewer opinions differ substantially, the editor may seek the opinion of an additional reviewer.

2. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • assess the scholarly quality, originality, technical soundness, and relevance of the manuscript
  • provide clear, constructive, and evidence-based comments that help authors improve their work
  • identify major strengths, weaknesses, errors, or omissions in the manuscript
  • indicate whether the methods, analysis, and conclusions are appropriate and adequately supported
  • submit their review within the time requested by the editorial office
  • inform the editor promptly if they are unable to review the manuscript within the requested timeline

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively and professionally, without personal criticism of the authors.

3. Confidentiality and Anonymity

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript with others without prior permission from the editor
  • use any unpublished data, interpretations, or ideas contained in the manuscript for personal advantage
  • disclose information about the manuscript or the review process to unauthorized persons

Reviewer identities remain confidential as part of the journal’s double-blind review process.

4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline a review invitation if they have any conflict of interest that could affect their ability to provide an impartial assessment. Conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to:

  • recent collaboration with any of the authors
  • institutional affiliation that may compromise objectivity
  • personal, professional, or financial relationships relevant to the manuscript
  • direct academic competition or any other circumstance that may impair neutral judgment

If a potential conflict exists, the reviewer should inform the editor immediately.

5. Qualities of a Good Reviewer

A good reviewer should demonstrate:

  • subject expertise relevant to the manuscript
  • objectivity and fairness
  • sound scientific and technical judgment
  • attention to methodological rigor and accuracy
  • ability to provide clear, reasoned, and constructive feedback
  • respect for confidentiality and publication ethics
  • ability to complete the review in a timely manner

6. Principles of Fair Review

NG Civil Engineering is committed to a fair and unbiased review process. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts solely on scholarly merit, including originality, technical quality, methodological rigor, clarity, significance, and relevance to the field of civil engineering.

Reviewers should not allow personal beliefs or bias related to nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, seniority, or other non-scholarly factors to influence their judgment.

7. What Reviewers Should Evaluate

When reviewing a manuscript, reviewers are encouraged to consider the following questions:

7.1 Scholarly and Technical Merit

  • Is the topic relevant to the scope of NG Civil Engineering?
  • Is the work original, significant, and technically sound?
  • Does the study make a meaningful contribution to civil engineering research or practice?
  • Are the objectives of the study clearly stated?
  • Is the methodology appropriate, adequately described, and reproducible where applicable?
  • Are the data analysis, interpretation, and conclusions supported by the results?
  • Are the limitations of the work adequately addressed?

7.2 Structure and Presentation

  • Does the title accurately reflect the content of the manuscript?
  • Does the abstract clearly summarize the purpose, methods, findings, and conclusions?
  • Is the manuscript logically organized and clearly written?
  • Are tables, figures, and illustrations necessary, clear, and properly presented?
  • Are references relevant, adequate, and appropriately cited?

7.3 Ethical and Professional Standards

  • Is there any indication of plagiarism, redundant publication, data manipulation, or other unethical practice?
  • Are ethical approvals, permissions, and disclosures included where required?
  • Are any concerns about authorship, conflicts of interest, or research integrity apparent?

8. Writing Review Comments

Reviewers should provide comments that are:

  • clear
  • specific
  • respectful
  • constructive
  • supported by reasons where possible

Comments should help the authors strengthen the manuscript and should distinguish clearly between major concerns and minor suggestions.

Where appropriate, reviewers may suggest:

  • clarification of methods or results
  • improvement in structure or presentation
  • additional literature to contextualize the study
  • correction of technical, analytical, or interpretive weaknesses

Reviewers should avoid vague statements, dismissive language, or personal remarks.

9. Comments to Authors and Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may provide:

Comments to Authors
These should contain the main scientific and editorial feedback intended to help the authors improve the manuscript.

Confidential Comments to the Editor
These may be used to communicate concerns that should not be shared directly with the authors, such as suspected ethical issues, conflicts of interest, or serious concerns about originality.

10. Timeliness of Review

Reviewers are expected to respond to review invitations promptly. If a reviewer accepts an invitation, the review should be completed within the time specified by the editorial office. If unforeseen circumstances arise, the reviewer should inform the editor as early as possible.

11. Editorial Independence

Reviewers support the journal’s commitment to editorial independence and integrity. Editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor on the basis of reviewer reports, editorial assessment, and the scholarly merit of the manuscript.

Reviewers do not make final publication decisions, but their evaluations play an essential role in the editorial process.

12. Appeals and Further Review

If substantial disagreement arises during peer review, the editor may invite additional reviewers or request further clarification. In cases involving author appeals, the editorial office may undertake further assessment where appropriate. The final decision on the manuscript rests with the journal.