Review Process

Submittals accepted for review will be acknowledged via email within 10 business days of receipt.

Reviews are single-blind: authors will not be told the names of reviewers. Each submittal is reviewed by at least three volunteer reviewers, selected by the editor for their expertise in their fields. All reviews are considered by the Engineering Journal review board, comprised of AISC technical staff, before rendering a decision. The review board decision will be communicated to the primary author and accompanied by reviewer comments. This review process takes approximately three to five months. 

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers for Engineering Journal submittals are selected by the editor based on the subject matter. The pool of reviewers consists of experienced industry professionals who participate or have participated on AISC committees as well as individuals who have expressed interest in reviewing papers. In general, we strive to send reviewers no more than two papers annually. If you are interested in becoming a reviewer, please contact Margaret Matthew, P.E., matthew@aisc.org.

AISC provides a manuscript review form (Word Doc) as a template for reviewer feedback. AISC requests that reviews be returned within 30 days of receipt of the paper. Send completed reviews to Martin Downs at downs@aisc.org.

1. Always reference the paper number in your review.
2. Include your name. Reviews are single-blind, so reviewers will know the author names, but authors will not know the reviewer names. AISC will remove identifying information from your review before conveying them to the authors.
3. Compose your review in a constructive manner.
4. Use the "points to consider" below as a guideline for your comments.
5. Hand-marked comments on printed pages, conveyed to AISC as PDFs, are acceptable.
6. Include your rating of the paper (see below) and your recommendation for publication (see below). The Engineering Journal review board weighs reviewer recommendations heavily when considering papers.

Points to Consider

These questions may be helpful to reviewers when composing reviews.

Interest and Subject Matter

• Does this paper present substantially new information or new treatment of existing knowledge?
• Is the paper free of commercial implications seeming to advocate special interests?
• Is the paper of potential value to practicing engineers and fabricators?
• Is the paper of probable interest and likely service to readers of the Engineering Journal?
  
  

Format and Technical Information

• Does the title adequately describe the paper?
• Is there an objective?
• Is the paper both technically correct and professionally sound?
• Is the paper clear and concise?
• Are topics discussed in logical order?
• Is the paper free from unnecessary duplication of material in text, tables, and illustrations? If no, indicate items that can be deleted.
• Is the paper adequately illustrated (not too many or too few)? If not, what graphics are needed for a clearer presentation, and what graphics might be eliminated?
• Are the conclusions justified and explained in the body of the paper?
• Are there adequate references? Are all references relevant to the paper? Are all relevant references presented?

Guidelines for Rating Papers

• Excellent: The technical content of the paper is exceptionally thorough and well-presented. The paper presents no organizational issues and requires minimal editing.
• Good: The technical content of the paper is acceptable and the presentation of information is clear and concise.
• Average: The technical content of the paper is acceptable and the presentation of information is reasonably clear and concise. Style and editorial issues are minor and the paper may require minor author revisions.
• Below average: The technical content of the paper is of marginal quality and/or the presentation of information requires substantial rework. Style and editorial issues are numerous. The paper requires substantial reworking by the authors.
• Poor: The technical content of the paper is weak and/or the presentation of information is confusing or incomplete. The paper--and perhaps the underlying research--require substantial reworking by the authors.

Guidelines for Publication Recommendations

• Accept: The paper in its current format may be published with minor editing.
• Accept with comments: The paper should be published, but the authors should address a few technical issues prior to publication. The technical issues are minor and may be verified by the editor without further technical review.
• Revise and resubmit: The paper topic is suitable for publication, but it requires significant reworking prior to publication. The paper will be re-reviewed to ensure the comments have been adequately addressed.
• Decline: The technical content of the paper is not suitable for publication, the topic is outside of the scope of the journal, or the presentation and/or organization demonstrates minimal understanding of journal standards.