Peer Review Policies
Peer review for ACF Journal is a positive system to ensure that the journal disseminates high-quality scientific research and engineering practice in the field of concrete structures and materials. All articles submitted to ACF Journal must undergo peer review to be assessed regarding originality and significance for possible publication.
Peer Review Process
ACF Journal operates a closed peer review process. Reviewers will be treated anonymously, and the review history of each article will not be disclosed to the public except for the submitted, revised, and accepted dates. The Editor-in-Chief, Editors, and Reviewers will treat all submissions to ACF Journal in confidence.
All submissions to ACF Journal are initially assessed by the Editor-in-Chief, who will decide whether they are suitable for peer review and will assign Editor(s) if so. Submissions judged to be suitable for consideration will be sent to Editor(s) for peer review by appropriate independent experts. When an Editor has any conflict of interest in a specific submission, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to take responsibility for overseeing peer review.
Peer review process for each submission involves at least two independent reviewers at each stage. The Editor will make a decision based on the reviewers’ reports, and will send the comments to the corresponding author along with the editorial decision on their manuscript, that is, “Accept”, “Minor Revision”, “Major Revision”, or “Reject”. The authors should note that, even in light of some positive comments, concerns raised by other reviewers may result in rejection of the manuscript.
The submitted manuscript can be rejected if:
- There are no new scientific findings,
- Logics are unsound or irrational,
- It lacks necessary details to understand the authors' analysis,
- It provides unclear or insufficient descriptions of materials and methods, hypotheses, sample preparations, and experiments,
- Experiments or statistical analyses are erroneous,
- Conclusions are not supported by presented data and analyses,
- References are irrelevant, insufficient, or out-of-date,
- Language quality or manuscript structure is poor.
Revisions are vital part of the peer review process to increase the quality of the submitted manuscript for publication. When revising the manuscript as a result of the editorial decision:
- Address all comments raised by the editor and reviewers;
- Explain the revisions to the manuscript in the authors’ response letter;
- Perform additional experiments or analyses the reviewers recommend, or explain why they are not performed;
- Provide scientific rebuttals to any comments the authors disagree with;
- Present the revisions in the manuscript by highlighting the changes, either with a different color text or with the “Track Changes” function; and
- Submit the revised manuscript and authors’ response letter within the given time.
Editorial board members and peer reviewers of ACF Journal are experts in the field all around the world who volunteer to help improve the credential of the journal. The authors are required to suggest at least three potential reviewers. Whether or not to consider these reviewers is at the Editor's discretion. The authors may request exclusion of some individuals as peer reviewers, but should explain the reasons. The Editor may choose to invite some of the excluded as reviewers.