Peer Review Policy

NG Civil Engineering (NGCE) follows a double-blind peer review process to maintain scholarly quality, fairness, confidentiality, and editorial integrity. In this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process in order to support objective and unbiased evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

Review Process

1. Initial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor to determine whether the submission falls within the scope of the journal and meets the basic standards of originality, technical quality, clarity, and formatting. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements may be returned to the authors without being sent for external peer review.

2. Plagiarism Screening

Manuscripts may be screened for originality using plagiarism detection software before being sent for peer review. Submissions found to contain plagiarism, redundant publication, or unacceptable textual overlap may be rejected or returned to the authors for clarification or correction.

3. External Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

Reviewers are asked to 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
  • overall contribution to the field

Reviewer comments and recommendations are communicated to the authors in anonymized form. Where necessary, revised manuscripts may be sent for further review.

4. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer reports and editorial assessment, the decision on a manuscript may be one of the following:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the handling editor on the basis of reviewer recommendations, the quality of revisions, and the overall suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal.

Review Timeline

The journal aims to provide a first editorial decision within a reasonable period after submission. The overall time to publication may vary depending on the availability of reviewers, the number of review rounds required, the extent of revisions, and the responsiveness of authors during the revision process.

Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers are expected to maintain high standards of academic integrity and professional conduct. In particular, reviewers should:

  • treat manuscripts as confidential documents
  • review submissions objectively, fairly, and constructively
  • avoid personal criticism of authors
  • disclose any conflict of interest
  • decline to review if they are not suitably qualified or unable to complete the review in a timely manner

Editorial Independence and Conflict of Interest

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, technical quality, relevance to the journal, and reviewer feedback. Editorial evaluation and peer review are conducted independently of the authors’ institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, seniority, or ability to pay publication charges.

Where a submission is authored by an editor, editorial board member, or any individual with a potential conflict of interest, that person will have no involvement in the editorial handling, reviewer selection, or decision-making process for the manuscript. Such submissions are handled independently to ensure a fair and impartial review process.