Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The scope of the Composite: Journal of Civil Engineering includes:

• Construction Engineering

• Transportation Engineering

• Water Engineering

• Environmental Engineering

• Construction Management

• Geotechnical Engineering

• Occupational Health and Safety in Construction

• Construction and Environment Law

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Every article submitted to the editor will be received first by the staff editor then selected the selection editor for the next stage. the next stage through the Initial Review process by the selection Editor. The selection editor will continue the article to the reviewer stage and sent to the editorial board and the executive editor will follow the next selection of the Review Process stage. After that, the article of the review process will be sent to the selection editor to be received or returned to the author for revision. This process takes a month for a maximum time. In each manuscript, the editorial board and peer reviewers will be assessed from substantial and technical aspects.

All submitted manuscripts are read by editorial staff. the manuscript evaluated by the editor becomes incompatible with journal criteria rejected immediately without any external reviews. The manuscript evaluated to be a potential interest for our readers is sent to two reviewer desks. The editor then makes a decision based on reviewers' recommendations of several possibilities: rejected, revision required, or accepted. The editor has the right to decide which manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published.

Review Process:

The author submits the script
Editor's Evaluation (some manuscripts denied or returned before the review process)
A blind peer review process
Editor's Decision
Confirm to an author

Revision Guidelines

The paper that has received the results of the review is expected to be immediately revised to adjust the suggestions and questions that exist in the review results. The author is given no later than 15 days to revise his paper counted since the submission of the review results. If at that time the author does not upload the revised paper, then the paper will not be refused to be published (reject). Renewal time extensions can be obtained in accordance with strong demand and reason. The revised paper is further uploaded to Journal website and also sent via email [email protected].

Following the provisions of the revised paper in Journal :

When a reviewer gives comment on paper (in the comment box), the writer asked to directly reply to that comment box. The answer from the author can be Information that has been done revision or reason/argumentation if the author is not willing to revise for some reason (please can be submitted in the comments field already available briefly and details).
Revised on paper or additional material/sentence please block yellow highlighter.
Attached sample of revision process paper in Journal to facilitate revision process by the author.

Publication Frequency

Composite: Journal of Civil Engineering (CJCE) is published twice a year, in June and December, by the Civil Engineering Study Program, Faculty of Engineering, University of Merdeka Malang.

Open Access Policy

this journal is an open-access journal that provides immediate, worldwide, barrier-free access to the full text of all published articles without charging readers or their institutions for access. readers have the right to read, download, copy, distributes, print, search or link to the full texts of all article in Composite: Journal of Civil Engineering.

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 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. More...

Screening for Plagiarism

In this publication, the Composite: Journal of Civil Engineering strongly opposes plagiarism because of its own abilities. The Composite: Journal of Civil Engineering is committed to blocking plagiarism, including self-plagiarism.

The author must ensure that the author has written the original work fully if the author has used the work and/or words of others who have been quoted correctly, and if found indications of plagiarism (above 25%) in the text, then the Composite: Journal of Civil Engineering automatically has the right to reject the manuscript. The Composite: Journal of Civil Engineering strongly recommends, too, an important part of the manuscript before it is published. The author also appreciates writing in the Composite: Journal of Civil Engineering of publications, duplicates, or excessive fraud.

Before the author submits the manuscript to the Composite: Journal of Civil Engineering at least examine the use of plagiarism. When submitting articles published for authenticity checks, the Composite: Journal of Civil Engineering recommends the use of Turnitin, Scanner from http://turnitin.com/. Before using Turnitin Plagiarism for the first time, we strongly recommend that the writer read the instructions for using this plagiarism detector. The plagiarism detection system for the Composite: Journal of Civil Engineering uses and is affiliated with Turnitin.

* Please note that the Composite: Journal of Civil Engineering is affiliated with Turnitin. *

The article has not been published in other media and does not contain plagiarism. Preferably the author must use reference management software, for example, Mendeley. Bibliography and reference system for the Composite: Journal of Civil Engineering using Mendeley and Turnitin.

Peer Review Process

Every article submitted to the editor will be received first by the staff editor and then selected by the selection editor for the next stage. the next stage through the Initial Review process by the selection Editor. The selection editor will continue the article to the reviewer stage and send it to the editorial board and the executive editor will follow the next selection of the Review Process stage. After that, the article of the review process will be sent to the selection editor to be received or returned to the author for revision. This process takes a month for a maximum time. In each manuscript, the editorial board and peer reviewers will be assessed from substantial and technical aspects.

All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. the manuscript evaluated by the editor becomes incompatible with journal criteria rejected immediately without any external reviews. The manuscript evaluated to be a potential interest for our readers is sent to two reviewer desks. The editor then makes a decision based on reviewers' recommendations of several possibilities: rejected, revision required, or accepted. The editor has the right to decide which manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published.

Review Process:

The author submits the script
Editor's Evaluation (some manuscripts denied or returned before the review process)
A blind peer review process
Editor's Decision
Confirm to an author

Publication Ethics

Our ethic statements are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Hasil gambar untuk committee on publication ethics logo

Publication decisions
The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.
The editor 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 editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

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.

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.

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.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

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.

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.

Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

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.

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.

Duties of Authors

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.

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.

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. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

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.

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 and no inappropriate co-authors are included in 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.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or another substantive conflict 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.

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.

Revision Guidelines

The paper that has received the results of the review is expected to be immediately revised to adjust the suggestions and questions that exist in the review results. The author is given no later than 15 days to revise his paper counted since the submission of the review results. If at that time the author does not upload the revised paper, then the paper will not be refused to be published (reject). Renewal time extensions can be obtained in accordance with strong demand and reason. The revised paper is further uploaded to the Journal website and also sent via email to [email protected]

Following the provisions of the revised paper in the Journal:

When a reviewer gives a comment on the paper (in the comment box), the writer is asked to directly reply to that comment box. The answer from the author can be Information that has been done revision or reason/argumentation if the author is not willing to revise for some reason (please can be submitted in the comments field already available briefly and details).
Revised on paper or additional material/sentence please block yellow highlighter.
Attached sample of the revision process paper in the Journal to facilitate the revision process by the author.