Peer Review Process
Green Construction Journal (GCJ) implements a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process to ensure the quality, originality, scientific validity, and relevance of all published manuscripts. In this system, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process, thereby promoting objectivity, fairness, and academic integrity.
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening conducted by the Editorial Board. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for compliance with the journal's focus and scope, author guidelines, manuscript structure, language quality, ethical standards, and plagiarism screening using Turnitin. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected before entering the peer-review stage.
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who possess expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on originality, significance of contribution, methodological rigor, validity of results, quality of discussion, adequacy of references, and overall scientific merit. Reviewers provide recommendations categorized as: Accept Submission, Revisions Required, Resubmit for Review, or Decline Submission.
Based on the reviewers' comments and recommendations, the Editor may request minor revisions, major revisions, additional review rounds, or reject the manuscript. Authors are required to respond to all reviewer comments and submit a revised manuscript within the specified timeframe. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.
The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewers' recommendations, authors' revisions, editorial considerations, and compliance with publication ethics. Editorial decisions are made solely on academic merit, scientific quality, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope without regard to the authors' race, gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, or political beliefs.
Peer Review Workflow
- Manuscript Submission
- Editorial Screening
- Turnitin Similarity Check
- Double-Blind Peer Review by at least two reviewers
- Reviewer Recommendations
- Author Revision
- Editorial Evaluation
- Final Decision by Editor-in-Chief
- Copyediting and Proofreading
- Publication
Review Timeline
- Initial Editorial Screening: 1–2 weeks
- Peer Review Process: 2–6 weeks
- Revision by Authors: 1–4 weeks
- Final Editorial Decision: 1–2 weeks
The average time from submission to first decision is approximately 4–8 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
- Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts.
- Provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations.
- Identify relevant published works not cited by the authors.
- Report suspected plagiarism or ethical concerns.
- Declare any conflicts of interest that may affect their judgment.
Publication Ethics Compliance
The peer-review process of Green Construction Journal follows the principles and best practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and supports the quality assurance requirements of the Indonesian Journal Accreditation System (ARJUNA/SINTA). The journal is committed to maintaining transparency, accountability, and integrity throughout the editorial and publication process.
