Reviewers are anonymous to authors and vice-versa; it is therefore best, whenever possible, to avoid handwritten reviews. Although the reviewers are anonymous, the authors can indicate a rejection preference for a potential reviewer, from the beginning of evaluation process (see the Submission form). The official language of MCEE is English. It is the autor's entire responsability to make sure that a submitted paper fulfills English grammar and syntax standards.
To be definitely accepted or rejected for publication, a paper must receive two positive or two negative reviews. If one positive and one negative review are received, a third clarifying, tie-breaking review must be performed.
In the case of a tentatively accepted paper, some minor revisions must be made by authors, as requested by the reviewers. Revised manuscript must return to the editor for final review, in a reasonable period of time, before receiving publishing acceptance. A manuscript under re-review may be rejected if (i) the author did not revised accordingly the article as requested by reviewers, (ii) new material was introduced that is considered to be of unacceptable quality or out of initial topics, or (iii) additional errors are found.
Send out for review
At least two reviewers will be appointed by the MCEE's editors, who will send each reviewer an e-version of the paper. The reviewers read the manuscript and send in their results, selecting only one of the available recommendation options. Based on reviewers form the editor completes a final review and communicates the result to the authors. The communication between author and reviewer is done anonymously through editors.
Paper outside the range of topics addressed by MCEE
The editor and/or reviewers may decide whether a paper is suitable or not for the journal's range of topics. The authors will be informed in case of rejection.
Return without review (grammar/syntax)
The editors or reviewers may determine whether a submitted paper has major deficiencies with English grammar and syntax and is not ready for review. The authors are requested to make the necessary revisions so that to be acceptable for technical review.
Based on two clear positive reviews, the editor decides that the manuscript is ready for publication in its current shape. The editor sends the two reviews and his recommendation to MCEE Editorial Board. Authors will receive from the Executive Editor an acceptance note and the manuscript is moved into production.
Paper accepted only if author/authors proceed to requested minor changes
Based on two reviews, the editor decides that the manuscript is almost ready to be published only if the reviewer's requested minor changes are properly done by the authors. The editor sends his opinion to reviewers who decide whether or not the requested changes where performed by the authors. If accepted, the authors will be requested to submit their final manuscript, along with the copyright agreement and e-file of the manuscript.
Paper rejected (paper outside the range of topics addressed by MCEE)
A manuscript may be definitely rejected for review, if it is found to be outside of the range of topics addressed by MCEE. The authors will receive a clarifying note from the editor.
Based on at least two reviews, the editor decides that the manuscript is not appropriate for publication due to (i) unacceptable quality of English or (ii) the technical content is of inappropriate level for the readership of the journal. The editor sends the reviews to MCEE and the Executive Editor communicates this decision to authors, alerting them that no further revisions will be considered. A manuscript that has been rejected for publishing may not be resubmitted unless it has been substantially revised and presented for a new submission.
The authors may appeal the rejection decision of a paper. The appeal will be analyzed by the Editorial Board members and communicate the final decision to the authors.
The peer-review decision may also be appealed by the authors, but only once. Thus, the manuscript will be reviewed by two different reviewers and their opinion will be confronted to first ones for the final decision.
Obligations of Editors
The primary responsibility of MCEE editors is to ensure an efficient and fair review process of manuscripts submitted for publication, and to maintain high standards of professional quality according to the journal’s definition and scope (i.e. originality, comprehensiveness and relevance for Civil Engineering community).
The editorial staff shall provide no information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than those from whom professional advice regarding the publication of the manuscript is sought. The names of reviewers shall not be released by the editors or editorial staff. An editor shall avoid conflicts of interest and/or the appearance thereof.
An editor who authors or coauthors a manuscript submitted for consideration to the journal with which that editor is affiliated, shall not review that work.
If an editor is presented with convincing evidence that the substance, conclusions, references or other material included in a manuscript published in the MCEE journal are erroneous, the editor shall facilitate immediate publication of an errata by the author(s). If possible, the editor shall also facilitate publication of appropriate comments and/or papers identifying those errors.
The editors shall perform the crosscheck evaluation of manuscript, prior to assign it to reviewers. Any significant similarity, suspicion of plagiarized material or falsified research data, detected by the automated procedure in the submitted manuscript will be clarified based on author(s) opinion and shall be treated according to UTCB regulations on ethics.
Obligations of Authors
The author's obligation is to present a concise account of the research work together with an objective discussion of its significance. A submitted manuscript shall prove the applicability of the work described for the Civil Engineering field. It shall contain detail and reference to public sources of information sufficient to permit the author's peers to verify its accuracy.
The author warrants that the article is original, written by stated author/s, has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author/s. Parts of a previously published paper, in a journal or a conference proceedings, may be reproduced in the submitted manuscript, with the written permission of journal’s or conference editors and mentioned with clarity in the text and references.
An author shall cite and give appropriate attribution to those publications influential in determining the nature of the reported work sufficient to guide the reader quickly to earlier work essential to an understanding of the present work. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, shall be treated in the same confidential manner.
It is inappropriate for an author to submit for review more than one paper describing essentially the same research or project to more than one journal or conference proceeding of primary publication.
Criticism of a published paper may sometimes be justified; however, personal criticism is never appropriate.
To protect the integrity of authorship, only persons who have significantly contributed to the research or project and paper preparation shall be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author attests to the fact that any others named as coauthors have seen the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. No fictitious name shall be given as an author or coauthor. An author who submits a manuscript for publication accepts responsibility for having properly included all, and only, qualified co-authors.
It is inappropriate to submit manuscripts with an obvious commercial intent.
Obligations of Reviewers
Because qualified manuscript review is essential to the publication process, all reviewers have the obligation to do their fair reviews. If a reviewer feels inadequately qualified or lacks the time to fairly judge the work reported, the reviewer shall return the manuscript promptly to the editor.
A reviewer shall objectively judge the quality of a manuscript on its own merit and shall respect the intellectual independence of the author(s). Personal criticism is never appropriate.
If a manuscript submitted for review presents a potential conflict of interest or the reviewer has a personal bias, the reviewer shall return the manuscript promptly without review and so advise the editor.
A reviewer shall treat a manuscript received for review as a confidential document and shall neither disclose nor discuss it with others except, as necessary, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted shall be disclosed to the editor.
Reviewers shall explain and support judgments adequately so that the editor and author(s) may understand the basis for their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported shall be accompanied by the relevant citation.
A reviewer shall call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal or conference proceeding.
If a reviewer has convincing evidence that a manuscript contains plagiarized material or falsified research data, the reviewer shall notify the editors and proceed according to the UTCB regulations.
MCEE journal is committed to publish high quality research papers that fully comply with the copyright regulations and research ethics (http://publicationethics.org/).
MCEE uses the iThenticate® provided by Crosscheck System http://www.crossref.org/crosscheck/index.html in order to check the compliance with publishing policy and regulations.
The management of automated crosscheck system is the responsibility of Editors, as well as the entire handling process. Inappropriate private use, beyond the scope of MCEE, confidentiality of research information and intellectual property, is subjected to legal penalty according to enforced regulations.
The author(s) will be notified about any significant similarity, inappropriate referencing or suspicion of plagiarized material or falsified research data, provided by the automated procedure. After reviewing (i) the submitted manuscript and accompanying editor’s report, and (ii) the author(s) opinion, the Editorial Board will proceed according to UTCB regulations on ethics.
However, it is of first responsibility of the author(s) to guarantee that the submitted manuscript fulfill the required ethical standards.