Peer Review Process

ACEE conducts a rigorous and impartial review process designed to uphold the highest standards of scholarship, originality, and methodological integrity in civil and environmental engineering.

Initial Submission & Desk Screening

Each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment for scope, relevance, compliance, and originality. Manuscripts may be desk-rejected if they fall outside ACEE’s focus or fail to meet baseline quality standards.

Similarity & Ethics Screening

Submissions are screened using automated similarity-check systems to detect potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unethical reuse of text.

Double‑Blind Peer Review

Suitable manuscripts are reviewed under a double‑blind model: the identities of authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other to prevent bias.

Reviewer Assignment & Evaluation

• A minimum of two independent subject-matter experts are selected for each manuscript.
• Reviewers assess manuscripts based on originality, methodological rigor, clarity, reproducibility, and ethical compliance.
• Constructive feedback should include both strengths and areas for improvement, with actionable suggestions.

Timelines

Reviewers are typically requested to submit their reports within 15 days. Authors receive an initial editorial decision (accept, revise, reject) within 4–6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability.

Decision & Revision Cycle

Based on reviewer feedback, editorial decisions may include invitation for major or minor revision, conditional acceptance, or rejection. Revised manuscripts must be accompanied by a detailed response to reviewers’ comments.

Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editorial member makes the final decision following revision and reviewer evaluation. In cases of conflicting reviews, additional expert opinion may be sought.

Quality Assurance

ACEE ensures all review reports adhere to standards of academic integrity and professionalism, discouraging bias and abusive language. Editors monitor review quality and may remove reviewers who fail to meet these criteria.

Appeals Process

Authors dissatisfied with editorial decisions may appeal by submitting new evidence or reasoned arguments. Appeals are evaluated by senior or independent editorial members to ensure fair resolution.