Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

FOCUS

JCEF focuses to advance the development of sustainable infrastructure, as well as the dissemination of conceptual ideas and the implementation of countermeasures, particularly in the tropics, which is vulnerable to disasters. Specifically, we look to publish articles with the potential to make real-world contributions to improving both local communities and countries' readiness for and responsiveness to natural and human-made disasters.

SCOPE

The particular emphasis of JCEF is given to the civil & environmental engineering researches associated with natural disaster such as geo-disaster (earthquake, landslide, and volcanic eruption), water-related disaster (flood, debris flow, coastal disaster, and tsunami) and human-made disaster such as soil, water and air pollution and water scarcity. Articles describing the topics of disaster risk reduction techniques, disaster early warning system, climate change adaptation, vulnerability analysis and trends, pre and/or post-disaster reconstruction and rehabilitation planning and management, forensic engineering, the socio-engineering approach for the countermeasures, or water reuse and recycle are particularly encouraged.

 

Section Policies

Research Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Technical Note

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Editorial Note

Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Review Article

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Every manuscript submitted has to follow author guidelines of JCEF. Every article will go through Initial Review processes by Handling Editors. Handling editors will check : (1) language (grammar and clarity) and template; (2) within defined focus and scope; (3) novelty; and (4) similarity index. Similarity check is conducted by using Turnitin to make sure the manuscripts are free from plagiarism contents.

Articles meet the above mentioned requirements will go through Double-Blind Full Review Process by at least 2 (two) or more Peer-Reviewers. Once the review completed, the articles will be returned to the authors along with reviewers’ evaluation. Authors have to revise accordingly within three weeks after notification email from editor. In addition to revised paper, authors have to respond all the reviewers’ comments in separate file (available in our website). These processes might take three months for a maximum time.

In each manuscript evaluation, the peer reviewer will be rated from the substantial and technical aspects. Final decision is made by Editor-in-Chief by considering evaluation given by an associate editor and reviewers. All accepted manuscripts will be proofread by JCEF and author before published.

 

Publication Frequency

Journal of the Civil Engineering Forum (JCEF) published thrice a year in one issue, Number 1-3 are scheduled for publication: January, May, and September.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the PKP-PN LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration.

 

Publication Ethics

Journal of the Civil Engineering Forum (hence JCEF) is a journal aims to be a an authoritative source of information. We publish original research papers, review articles, technical notes and editorial note focused on disaster related topics in Civil Engineering and has never been published elsewhere in any language, nor is it under review for publication anywhere. This following statement clarifies ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the editor, the reviewer, and the publisher. This statement is based on COPE’s Publication Ethics.

Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting Standards: 
    Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
  2. Data Access and Retention: 
    Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
  3. Originality and Plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out.
  4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication: 
    An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication (except in the form of a conference abstract or as part of a published lecture or thesis for an academic qualification), and under consideration for publication elsewhere. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
  5. Acknowledgment of Sources: 
    Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
  6. Authorship of the Paper: 
    Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors, no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
  7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 
    All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
  8. Fundamental errors in published works: 
    When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
  9. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: 
    If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Duties of Editors

  1. Fair Play: 
    An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
  2. Confidentiality: 
    The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
  3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 
    Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
  4. Publication Decisions
    The editor board journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
  5. Review of Manuscripts: 
    The editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. The editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

Duties of Reviewers

  1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions:
    Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
  2. Promptness: 
    Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process
  3. Standards of Objectivity: 
    Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  4. Confidentiality: 
    Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
  5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: 
    Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
  6. Acknowledgment of Sources: 
    Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Allegations of Misconduct

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and writing an article by authors, or in reporting research results. In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will include an investigation of the allegation by the Editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such misconduct, a retraction can be published and will be linked to the original article.

Authorships and Contributorship

JCEF want a transparency around who contributed to the work and in what capacity. If there is a case of authorship issue related to misleading action of one of author, deceased author, duplicate submission and any other authorship dispute then the editor have a right to reject the manuscript to avoid the potential authors dispute in the future. In a case where the paper has been published a retraction have to be done. The exception can be given to the case of deceased author, the rest authors could clarify the conflict of interest statement to obtain a notarized statement. For purposes of transparency, the editor will add a statement on the disclaimer, including the date in relation participation in authorship. 

Complaints and Appeals

Journal of the Civil Engineering Forum have a clear procedure for handling complaints against the journal, Editorial Staff, Editorial Board or Publisher. The complaints will be clarified to the respected person with respect to the case of complaint. The scope of complaints include anything related to the journal business process, i.e. editorial process, found citation manipulation, unfair editor/reviewer, peer-review manipulation, etc. The complaint cases will be processed according to COPE guideline.

Conflict of Interest / Competing Interests

The conflict of interest or competing interests should be declared in the paper as Disclaimer. The section of Disclaimer contain a declaration that there is no conflict before publication or post publication.

Ethical Oversight

If the research work involves chemicals, human, animals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript in order to obey ethical conduct of research using animals and human subjects. If required, Authors must provide legal ethical clearance from the association or legal organization. If the research involves confidential data and of business/marketing practices, authors should clearly justify this matter whether the data or information will be hidden securely or not.

Intellectual Property

Journal of the Civil Engineering Forum provides a Copyright Transfer Form, to inform the author about the right of repoducibility after the paper is being published. The form can be downloaded on the website and send it through supplementaty files or Journal’s email.

Journal Management

In a case of an author want to withdraw his/her paper before publication, editor have to approve the author’s intention as long as author provide clear reason of the paper withdrawal. The reason should be writen email to Editor-in-Chief.

In case of an author ask the retraction after the paper is published, editor have right to request a reason and if possible author can provide a proof to support his/her argument. The withdrawal can be conducted as long as the clarification/reason given by author can be accepted by the Editor.

Post-publication Discussions and Corrections

In case there is an author request for correcting the affiliation of an author after publication, a formal erratum, linked directly to the online article, should be done. The correction should state the facts, that the affiliation was not included in the original paper, but it was the affiliation at the time and remains the affiliation now. Journal of the Civil Engineering Forum strongly suggests author to include their ORCID IDs with this way affiliations can be updated.

 

Screening for Plagiarism

The manuscript will be checked for plagiarism during submission and before publication using Turnitin

 

Statistic Download Article

Statistic download using ALM Plugin, statistic, will show on every article page.

click here

 

Review Guidelines

Review Process of Manuscript:

a. Initial Review

  1. Read the abstract to be sure that you have the expertise to review the article. Don’t be afraid to say no to reviewing an article if there is a good reason.
  2. Read information provided by the journal for reviewers so you will know: a) The type of manuscript (e.g., a review article, technical note, original research) and the journal’s expectations/parameters for that type of manuscript.; b) Other journal requirements that the manuscript must meet (e.g., length, citation style).
  3. Check the manuscript for plagiarism.
  4. Know the journal’s scope and mission to make sure that the topic of the paper fits in the scope.
  5. Ready? Read through entire manuscript initially to see if the paper is worth publishing- only make a few notes about major problems if such exist: a) Is the question of interest sound and significant?; b) Was the design and/or method used adequately or fatally flawed? (for original research papers); c) Were the results substantial enough to consider publishable (or were only two or so variables presented or resulted so flawed as to render the paper unpublishable)?
  6. What is your initial impression? If the paper is: 
    1. Acceptable with only minor comments/questions: solid, interesting, and new; sound methodology used; results were well presented; discussion well formulated with Interpretations based on sound scientific reasoning, etc., with only minor comments/questions, move directly to writing up review;
    2. Fatally flawed so you will have to reject it: move directly to writing up review;
    3. A mixture somewhere in the range of “revise and resubmit” to “accepted with major changes” or you’re unsure if it should be rejected yet or not: It may be a worthy paper, but there are major concerns that would need to be addressed.
    4. Once you have completed your review, please write you review notes in the Form of Reviewer-Author response (download here) to ease the author address your comment. In addition, this form will help quickly help an Editor to review the author response.
  7. This journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. Thus, please make sure that you remove any identifying information in your evaluation

b. Full Review

  1. Ready? Read through entire manuscript initially to see if the paper is worth publishing- only make a few notes about major problems if such exist: a) Is the question of interest sound and significant?; b) Was the design and/or method used adequately or fatally flawed? (for original research papers); c) Were the results substantial enough to consider publishable (or were only two or so variables presented or resulted so flawed as to render the paper unpublishable)?
  2. What is your initial impression? If the paper is: a) Acceptable with only minor comments/questions: solid, interesting, and new; sound methodology used; results were well presented; discussion well formulated with Interpretations based on sound scientific reasoning, etc., with only minor comments/questions, move directly to writing up review; b) Fatally flawed so you will have to reject it: move directly to writing up review; c) A mixture somewhere in the range of “revise and resubmit” to “accepted with major changes” or you’re unsure if it should be rejected yet or not: It may be a worthy paper, but there are major concerns that would need to be addressed.
  3. This journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. Thus, please make sure that you remove any identifying information in your evaluation.

New Reviewing and Decision Making Scheme at JCEF

To facilitate the work of Section Editor, JCEF proposes a Final Decision Table, which will ease the work of Section Editor. The table below is reviewing results from reviewer since Reviewers should assist Section Editor in making an editorial decision following the criteria set by the journal to improve the quality of the paper.

However, ss a consequence of implementing this table below, JCEF/Section Editor is required to assign three reviewers. However, in the case of three appointed reviewers, there are only two reviewer comments; the section editor can provide the third comment and decide the status of the manuscript (Accept, Revision or Reject).

Table 1. Basic conditions to make the final decision of a review