1. TYPES OF PAPER
Articles published in Engineering Sustainability can consist of
best or current practice review
historical or regional review
design and construction
technical solutions
theoretical and/or experimental research.
Two types of article are published: papers and briefing notes. Briefing notes are short articles that might cover any of the above and are subject to a simplified review process by two Editorial Advisory Panel (EAP) members; the aim here is to bring new ideas or examples of good practice swiftly to the attention of the readership. Papers cover any or all of the topics above and are subjected to rigorous peer review by two independent experts in the field and assessment by a member of the EAP. Practice papers include case histories and will consist of material drawn from the first four categories above and, while they undergo the same review process as papers, it is appreciated that activities such as detailed studies of the literature or relevant theoretical and/or experimental research are unlikely to have been undertaken. Discussion pieces are reviewed by the assessor of the article when originally submitted; the right of reply is offered to the authors, so the discussion will be considered both before and after reply.
2. ELEMENTS OF QUALITY TO BECONSIDERED IN THE REVIEW PROCESS
The aim of the review should be to help authors in writing papers of high quality. Different types of paper require a slightly different emphasis in quality review. Reviewers are asked to assess the quality of a paper by considering it against the following criteria.
2.1. New and informative
Papers should contain material not previously reported elsewhere unless the journal provides a new audience or the material is presented in a new and more useful, or expanded, form. Summaries of previously reported material should add value, perhaps in the form of drawing wider conclusions or adding weight.
2.2. Related to aims
The way in which the paper addresses sustainability and the aims of the journal should be stated clearly. It is also important to understand which areas are not addressed. It needs to be clear how the reported material leads to recommendations for doing things differently and to whom these recommendations are addressed.
2.3. Justified
Statements of fact should be clear and supported by quantitative evidence. Technical and theoretical contributions, in particular, should consist of material that is carefully justified throughout and any assumptions must be stated unambiguously. Opinions should be stated as such but should still be justified, perhaps in a more qualitative way. References to more detailed information or justification should be provided where possible and appropriate.
2.4. Presentation
An appropriate balance of text, graphs, figures and tables makes a paper easier to read and referees should also make recommendations on presentation, where appropriate.
2.5. Conclusions
Papers should contain clear conclusions, made with reference to the evidence presented in the body of the paper. A statement of the level of confidence in the conclusion may be appropriate. The implications of the conclusions should be noted. The level of confidence in a conclusion and its implications may be interdependent. The conclusions should be largely free of introductory or background material, other than perhaps a short set of initial statements that help to provide a context.
2.6. Benefits
Where new information, related to the aims of the journal, has led to justifiable conclusions, presented in a clear and easily read way, the benefits of the work should be apparent. A statement of how the work does or could lead to benefits to the profession and the wider community by achieving more sustainable solutions should be made.
