Reviewer Guide

Dos & Don’ts of Peer Review

DO:
  • Familiarize yourself with the Aims & Scope of the journal before beginning your review.
  • Anonymize your review. ASCE employs a single anonymous peer reviewer process. Reviewers should ensure their anonymity by removing their name, initials, or other identifying information from their review.
  • Use polite, constructive, and concise language.
  • Provide specific feedback on what the authors should improve. Referring to line numbers is helpful.
  • Check the article type of the manuscript you are reviewing. Please view our list of article types to ensure that you are appropriately reviewing the content required for that manuscript type.
  • Use the comment boxes to provide feedback to the authors and the editors. A field is provided for confidential comments to the editor.
DON’T:
  • Include your author feedback in the “Confidential comments to the editor” section. Authors will not see any comments entered in this field.
  • Copyedit the manuscript. If there are significant grammar/language issues, please mention that in your review.
  • Run the submission through iThenticate. ASCE runs all submissions through iThenticate at revision.
  • Use LLMs or AI tools when reviewing the manuscript or preparing comments to authors. View our policy on LLMs and AI.
  • Promote your own research. Please refrain from inappropriate self-citation (i.e., suggesting references to your publications) unless the work is relevant to the content. This also helps maintain anonymity in the review process.
  • Upload your review as a Word document or PDF. Please use the review form to provide your feedback.

Article Types

You can find in-depth descriptions of each article type in the ASCE Author Center.

Technical Papers — Full-length manuscripts of value and interest to civil engineers. They must be original reviews of past practice, present information of current interest, or probe new fields of civil engineering activity. They should report results of thought-provoking studies that contribute to the planning, analysis, design, construction, management, or maintenance of civil engineering works.

What to consider when writing your review:

  • Is the methodology well explained? What is the accuracy and validity of the methods?
  • Does the literature review include the latest research?
  • Are the results clearly presented and soundly interpreted? Have the authors provided evidence to support their results?
  • Have the authors outlined the limitations of the study?
  • Are the conclusions justified? Are they consistent with the results?

Technical Notes — These are brief articles focused on new practices and topics currently relevant to the field.

What to consider when writing your review:

  • Is the information original and practical?
  • Do the authors present preliminary or partial results? Are these results concise?
  • Have the authors used or presented innovative techniques?

Case Studies — Describe a method or application that illustrates a new or existing principle or presents an innovative way to solve a problem.

What to consider when writing your review:

  • Do the findings have practical relevance?
  • Does the study make new contributions to the current body of literature?
  • Do the results have broad implications?

State-of-the-Art Reviews — Provide timely, in-depth treatment of a specific issue relevant to the journal topics. They should leave the reader feeling as though they are up to date on the current practices in the field on the given topic.

What to consider when writing your review:

  • Do the authors provide a complete survey of the state of practice being examined? Do the authors describe current practices?
  • Is the literature review well-rounded? Does it include the most recent and relevant studies?
  • Do the authors provide perspective on the history of the practice? What is its importance to the field?

Forums — A brief, thought-provoking opinion piece or essay founded in fact, sometimes containing speculation. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion rather than document an advance in research or its application.

What to consider when writing your review:

  • Is the topic of general interest to the readership of the journal?
  • Is the topic relevant to the field?

Additional Content Types by Journal

The Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction contains these additional article types:

Scholarly Papers — Scholarly Papers are well-researched, original manuscripts that address the subject mater’s impact on the execution of engineering and construction projects. Articles discussing jurisprudence fall into this category.

What to consider when writing your review:

  • Is the topic of interest to the journal’s readership?
  • Is the methodology valid and clearly explained?
  • Is the literature review thorough? Do the authors identify gaps in the body of knowledge?
  • Do the authors explain the impact the topic has on the field?

Legal Notes — Similar to Technical Notes, Legal Notes are brief articles that emphasize the specific practice and application of laws.

What to consider when writing your review:

  • Is the information original, practical, and innovative?
  • Do the authors present clear and concise guidance on the applicability of specific laws?
  • Have the authors used or presented innovative techniques?

Features — Feature articles describe a subject of current public interest and are writen to apprise the readership of the main issues and developments in this mater.

What to consider when writing your review:

  • Is the content relevant and current?
  • What are the issues surrounding this topic? Do the authors adequately describe these issues?
  • Do the authors outline the most recent developments related to the topic?

Case Study — Describes any legal affair or dispute resolution case in detail and depth.

What to consider when writing your review:

  • Do the authors present a full history of the case? Do they provide a timeline of events?
  • Have the authors provided a detailed description of the arguments presented by the plaintiff and defendant?
  • Do the authors address the ramifications and broader impact of the case?

The Journal of Civil Engineering Education offers several types of technical papers. These are the following definitions for each type:

Traditional Research Papers — May use qualitative or quantitative methods to answer research question(s) related to civil engineering education.

What to consider when writing your review:

  • Does the study use established and validated methodologies? Are measurement tools used appropriately?
  • Do the results advance the field of civil engineering education? Do the results add new knowledge or validate previous studies in a new context?

Educational Intervention Studies — Can describe any type of educational intervention, including such examples as implementing a research-based strategy (e.g., problem based learning or interactive engagement) in the classroom, or broad changes to curriculum.

What to consider when writing your review:

  • Is there a clear description of the intervention that a reader could use to implement the intervention at their institution?
  • Do the authors provide a logical explanation of why the intervention would lead to the measured outcome(s)?
  • Does the research on the efficacy of the intervention rely on established and validated methodologies?

Systematic Literature Reviews — Summaries of best practices that adhere to appropriate methodologies.

What to consider when writing your review:

  • Does the review use established methodologies?
  • Do the authors incorporate research done in civil engineering education? Do they describe the specific relevance to the field?

Case Study — Describes an innovative educational method (tool, curriculum, etc.). Case Studies have two primary components: a) a deep grounding in the education literature and b) the ability for the study to reasonably be replicated by readers.

What to consider when writing your review:

  • Is the study grounded in literature through evidence based educational practices (EBIP) or research based instructional strategies?
  • Have the authors provided a detailed description of the application or intervention that incorporates one or more EBIP or RBIS?
  • Do the authors provide enough detail so that the reader could implement the method described in a unique and innovative way?

Practical Applications

Practical Applications are an optional manuscript section writen for broader audiences who may be interested in the key results of a study but may not be fully involved in the research community.

Authors provide a concise plain-language summary (150-200 words) of the paper writen for non-academic or practitioner audiences to identify the results, relevance, or potential applications the research describes. This section is included in the manuscript following the Abstract and should not include abbreviations, acronyms, computations, etc.

View more information on Practical Applications.

Decision Types

When providing their recommendation, the reviewer can choose from the following decision types:

Accept As Is: The content does not need further technical changes and is ready for publication. If any changes are needed, such as copyediting, reviewers should recommend “revise.”

Revise: The manuscript requires changes, whether minor or substantial, before it can be published. Reviewers should recommend specific changes to the authors and cite line numbers where these changes should be made.

Decline: The paper is not suitable for publication, or the necessary revisions are too substantial for the manuscript to be considered in its current form. Reviewers can assist the editor in choosing the appropriate “decline” decision type by explaining their reasoning for this recommendation (language issues, technical flaws, etc.).

After the review process is complete, editors can choose from the following decision types:

Revise for Editor Only: The authors have sufficiently revised the manuscript and the next round of review can be conducted by the editorial board.

Revise for Re-Review: The manuscript is not ready for publication and should be updated per the reviewer and editor feedback.

Accept As Is: The content of the manuscript does not need additional changes and the submission can be accepted for publication.

Decline – Final: The manuscript contains significant issues that cannot be resolved without major changes to the manuscript.

Decline w/Encouragement to Resubmit: The manuscript is not ready for publication and may have already gone through several revisions. The submission requires significant changes, and the authors are encouraged to resubmit their manuscript after thoroughly revising the manuscript.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Who should I contact if I agreed to review but cannot locate the manuscript in my account?

A: You may have a duplicate account. Contact the journal’s Editorial Coordinator so they can merge your accounts.

Q: Can I extend my review deadline?

A: Yes, contact the journal’s Editorial Coordinator. They can provide an extension in Editorial Manager, per the Editor’s approval.

Q: I already submited my review—why am I receiving a reminder to submit?

A: Your review may not have been submited. Login to your account and see if your review is in the “Pending Assignments” queue.

Q: I agreed to review but am no longer able to—what should I do?

A: Contact the journal’s Editorial Coordinator. They can unassign you from the manuscript or provide an extension so that you can submit later.

Q: What should I do if I agreed to review but discovered I may have a conflict of interest?

A: Reach out to the journal’s Editorial Coordinator. They can convey your concerns to the Chief Editor and if needed, they can unassign you from the manuscript.

Q: Can I download the manuscript/figures/response to reviewers?

A: Yes! Go to “Pending Reviewer Assignments” and under “Action,” click “View Submission.” In the top right corner of the PDF, you will see blue links on the first page of each separate file. Click the link to download the file.

Q: The figures are blurry—can I request higher-resolution figures?

A: Tiff figures are often high-resolution but appear blurry in the PDF. Click the link at the top right corner of the figure to download the figure file and view it in high-resolution. If you think the readability of the figures can be improved, please include that in your review.

Q: Did the authors respond to my feedback? I do not see a “Response to Reviewer” file.

A: This file is at the end of the PDF. Scroll to the end of the PDF to find these comments.

Q: How do I contact the journal’s Editorial Coordinator?

A: You can find the Editorial Coordinator’s contact information by going to the grey toolbar located under the journal title in Editorial Manager. Hover your cursor over “About” and then click “Contact” to email the Editorial Coordinator.