Journal of Materials and Construction (JOMC) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Vietnam Institute for Building Materials (VIBM). The journal is committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards based on COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. In order to provide our readers with a scientific journal of high quality, the JOMC is guided by the following policies.

1. FOR AUTHORS

Originality and Plagiarism: The Authors are requested to represent that the submission is the Authors’ original work which has not been previously published or under review elsewhere. If a part of the work is resulted by an organization or scientific team, it should be agreed in a written document by them for all uses. Submitting the same work to more than one journal is considered as an unethical publishing behavior and it is unacceptable. Authors should present their results clearly, honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. An article should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Authorship of the Article, Order of the Authors and Corresponding Author: All individuals who actually contributed to the work are included and identified as Authors. If the work was prepared jointly, the order of the Authors (from left to right) should be made based on their contribution on development of the scientific and applied ideas; performance of analyses, experiments, evaluations, comments for the work; creation of the manuscript. The corresponding Author indicated by the symbol * in the manuscript will take responsibility on behalf of the co-Authors to summit the manuscript, provide information on the Authors, reponse to the Reviewers’ questions, contact with the Editors, etc. The corresponding Author should inform the co-Authors to agree in the submission and to obtain their signatures to the Copyright Transfer Agreement or their written permission to sign on their behalf.  The corresponding Author is usually the first Author of the article.  

Errors in Published Articles: When the Author founds error or inaccuracy in the Author’s published article, it is the Author’s obligation to notify the Journal Editors and cooperate with them to retract or correct the article.

Acknowledgment of Sources: Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given by citing the source at appropriate places. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript relevant funding sources. Authors are required to declare whether or not they have financial, professional or personal interests from other parties or another conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript.

Hazards and Human Subjects: The Author also warrants that the manuscript contains no libelous or unlawful statements, does not infringe upon the rights or the privacy of others, or contain material or instructions that might cause harm or injury.

2. FOR REVIEWERS

Confidentiality: The Reviewer undertakes to keep submitted manuscripts and associated data confidential and privileged. The manuscripts must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editors. The Reviewer ensures that confidentiality is maintained while seeking advice from colleagues and assessing the manuscripts.

Improvement of the Article: The manuscript is improved by the peer review process. When possible and appropriate, the Reviewer suggests how the Author might improve clarity and the overall quality of the manuscript. It is Ok if the Reviewer disagrees with the Author’s ideas and asks the Author to provide reliable evidence to the disagreement. If the article is too long, the Reviewer points out specific areas which would benefit the Author from editing. The Reviewer makes suggestions to correct grammar when the technical meaning is unclear.

Timeliness: The Reviewers who accept invitations to review the manuscripts are requested to respond promptly and provide their comments within the agreed timeframe. If the Reviewers anticipate that they will not be able to meet the deadline, they are requested to inform the Editors so that new arrangements can be set up.

Conflicts of Interest: The Reviewers either seek clarification with the Editors or decline the invitation for review if there is a significant conflict of interest for the manuscript.

Ethical Standards: The Reviewer’s comments to the Author should be professional and courteous in order to ask for clarification on any items in the manuscript that feel unclear and require for additional explanation. Being rude or derogatory is not acceptable. The Reviewer’s comments should not include overtly negative comments which are unhelpful. If the Author provides reliable evidence to the disagreement about the research ideas, the Reviewer does not merit rejection. The Author welcomes positive and constructive feedback to the Reviewer’s comments.

Recommendation for Publication: Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the original Reviewers, who are asked to confirm that the comments have been addressed satisfactorily. The Reviewers are asked to make recommendation for publication to the Editors regarding a final decision.

3. FOR EDITORS

Quality and Content of the Journal: The Editors are responsible for identifying new and important topics for commissions, sourcing high quality manuscripts, approaching potential Authors and ultimately improving the quality of the Journal’s content. The Editors endorse the Journal to Readers, Authors and Colleagues and encourage them to submit their Work with high quality.

Selection of the Reviewers: Manuscripts submitted to the Journal are selected for double-blind peer-review by at least two Reviewers chosen by the Editors. The Authors are welcome to suggest at least three potential Reviewers; however, it is the Editors' decision whether or not to honor such suggestions. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, prior publications in the same topic area and prior performance as a Reviewer.

Management of the Review Process: The Editors are responsible for handling day-to-day works on manuscripts (for connection from the Authors to the Reviewers and back and finally to the publisher), making suggestions for subject matter and providing second opinions on manuscripts when there is a conflict between the Reviewers.

Editing the Review Report: The Editors reserve the right to edit review reports before transmitted to the Authors in order to remove offensive language or to remove comments that reveal confidential information.

Originality and Plagiarism: Manuscripts submitted to the Journal are screened for dectection of plagiarism using the iThenticate software by the Crossref Similarity Check as a service in order to verify the originality of manuscripts.

Decision for Publication: The Editors carefully consider the comments and advice by the peer Reviewers and use a variety of criteria (i.e. advanced and active research fields,  carefully prepared and formatted manuscript, clear and concise language, ethical standards, interest to readers) to make a final decision for publication of the manuscript. 

4. PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Introduction to Peer review: Peer review exists to ensure that articles to be published in the Journal are of high quality in order to benefit the entire scientific community. As an integral part of the publication process, peer review is used to confirm the validity of the science reported and thereby actually helps raise the quality of the published articles. Peer Reviewers are experts who spend their time to help improve the manuscripts they review by offering comments and advice freely to the Authors.

Initial Manuscript Evaluation: All new manuscripts submitted to the Journal are screened for completeness and adherence to the Instruction for Authors. Those that pass are then assigned to the Editors for consideration for sending for peer review. The Editor reads the manuscript through and first evaluates it based on the wider context of the research. The Editor will decide if it warrants peer review or if it should be rejected without review. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious conceptual and methodological research flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the Journal. Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will normally be informed within one week of receipt. Manuscripts that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to at least two experts for peer review.

Double-Blind Peer Review: The Journal uses double-blind peer review, which means that both the Reviewer and Author identities are concealed from the Reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. To facilitate this, Authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their personal identities (i.e. titles, names, e-mail addresses and affiliations). The Authors’ identities should be submitted separately following the Instruction for Authors.

Selection of Reviewers: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, prior publications in the same topic area and prior performance as a Reviewer. The Authors are welcome to suggest potential Reviewers; however, it is the Editors' decision whether or not to honor such suggestions. The Journal database of Reviewers is constantly being updated in order to track who are matched for peer review of manuscripts.

Peer Review Time: Typically a manuscript will be reviewed within three weeks at the first round. If the Reviewers do not send their review reports on time, a first reminder will be sent to them. If the Reviewers can not finish the review, please let the Editors know immediately so that the manuscript will be transferred to other Reviewers. The Reviewers and Editors may request more than one revision round of a manuscript and alternative Reviewers may also be invited to review the manuscript at any time. The revised manuscript will usually be returned to the initial Reviewers for confirmation before it is published.

Final Decision for Publication: The Editors are responsible for the decision to reject or accept the manuscripts for publication. The Editors’ decision will be sent to the Authors along with any recommendations made by the Reviewers. After acceptance, the manuscripts are designed by LATEX software and their uncorrected proof copies are sent to the Authors before publication. 

5. EARLY VIEW ARTICLES

Early View articles offered by the Journal are fully peer-reviewed and edited articles but lack of volume, issue, page and DOI numbers and they are considered as uncorrected proof copies, not the final ones. Early View articles are shown available on the Journal website to the community as quickly as possible before inclusion in a printed issue so that there is no need to wait for the next scheduled online publication, thus reducing time to publication considerably.

Once the articles are shown online on Early View, note that no further changes to the articles are made. The Early View articles are available as full text PDF at the Journal website and can be cited as references temporarily by using their links on the website. Upon print publication, the articles will be removed from the Early View area and will appear instead in the relevant online and print issue, completely added with volume, issue, page and DOI numbers.

6. INDEXES AND LINK

Journal of Materials and Construction (JOMC) is indexed in Google Scholar and Vietnam Citation Gate to account for the citations in the articles of the Journal.

7. PLAGIARISM DETECTION 

Journal of Materials and Construction uses iThenticate plagiarism detection system to screen for plagiarism for all manuscripts before publication.

8. NO PUBLICATION FEE

Journal of Materials and Construction (JOMC) welcomes Authors to submit manuscripts and does not charge a publication fee.