Peer Review Process

The Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering in the Global South (JCEEGS) implements a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and scientific integrity of all published articles. In this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed, ensuring objectivity, fairness, and independence in the evaluation of manuscripts.

All submitted manuscripts are assessed based on their scholarly merit, including originality, technical rigor, methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, and contribution to civil and environmental engineering, particularly within the diverse and evolving contexts of the Global South.

Review Stages

Initial Submission and Editorial Screening

Upon submission, manuscripts are first evaluated by the editorial team to assess their alignment with the journal’s focus and scope, as well as compliance with submission guidelines and ethical standards. Manuscripts that fall outside the scope or do not meet the required standards may be rejected at this stage without being sent for external review.

Plagiarism Check

All manuscripts undergo similarity screening using plagiarism detection software. Submissions with a high similarity index or evidence of academic misconduct will be rejected immediately.

Assignment to Handling Editor

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a Handling Editor or Section Editor with relevant expertise in civil or environmental engineering.

Double-Blind Peer Review

The manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and research background. They are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on originality, technical contribution, methodological rigor, clarity of analysis, and relevance to engineering challenges in the Global South context.

Reviewers’ Recommendations

Reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept without revision
  • Minor revisions required
  • Major revisions required
  • Reject

Editorial Decision

The Editor makes a decision based on the reviewers’ reports. In cases of significantly differing recommendations, an additional reviewer may be invited to provide further evaluation.

Revision Process

Authors are required to revise their manuscripts in accordance with reviewers’ comments and submit a revised version along with a detailed response explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Final Decision

The revised manuscript is evaluated by the Editor and, if necessary, returned to the reviewers for further assessment before a final decision is made.

Copyediting and Proofreading

Accepted manuscripts undergo professional copyediting to enhance clarity, consistency, and formatting, followed by proofreading to ensure accuracy prior to publication.

Publication

The final version of the manuscript is published online as part of the journal issue and made freely accessible under the journal’s open-access policy.

Review Timeline (Estimated)

  • Initial screening: 1–2 weeks
  • Peer review process: 4–8 weeks
  • Revision process: 2–4 weeks
  • Final decision and publication: 2–4 weeks