Civil & Project Journal (CPJ), owned and edited by Dr. Ali Ghorbani, founder of the Project Management Engineering discipline in Iran, has designed its manuscript process around quality control, specialist assessment, editorial independence, documented decisions, research integrity, and responsible communication with authors.
CPJ uses single-blind peer review: reviewers may see the authors’ identities and affiliations, while reviewer identities remain confidential from the authors. Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are normally assessed by a minimum of two suitably qualified subject specialists. Reviewer reports are advisory and influential; the final scientific decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief and authorized editorial bodies.
Reviewers can normally view author names and affiliations. Authors do not receive reviewer identities. Reviewers must not contact authors directly or disclose their identity through comments, documents, file properties, or external communication.
Manuscripts that satisfy editorial screening are normally referred to at least two reviewers selected for relevant scientific, methodological, technical, or professional competence and the absence of disqualifying competing interests.
Reviewer recommendations inform but do not replace editorial judgment. The Editor-in-Chief may accept, request revision, reject, seek another opinion, or return a manuscript for additional clarification when justified by the evidence.
CPJ holds ISC scientific accreditation under License No. 1402/2454, dated August 12, 2023. This status reinforces the journal’s responsibility to preserve independent peer review, research integrity, reasoned decisions, documented editorial records, and regular publication.
No payment is required for submission or entry into scientific assessment. Financial arrangements are not a criterion for reviewer selection, review outcome, acceptance, rejection, or appeal.
View the Journal’s ISC RecordCPJ seeks timely and orderly processing, but scientific reliability, appropriate reviewer selection, complete revision, and ethical assessment take precedence over an artificial deadline.
Decisions are based on scope, originality, research design, data, analysis, contribution, integrity, reviewer advice, and editorial judgment—not payment, influence, status, personal relations, or publication quotas.
Manuscript files, revisions, reviewer reports, author responses, editorial correspondence, and decisions are recorded through the journal system. The corresponding author should use that record for formal follow-up.
Academic rank, reputation, institution, nationality, geographic location, professional position, or relationship with the journal must not replace consistent scientific and ethical criteria.
Original research articles, review articles, case studies, applied or professional articles, methodological or conceptual articles, and scholarly perspectives or research notes may enter external peer review when they:
A submission may be returned or declined before external review when it is incomplete, outside scope, substantially non-compliant, scientifically underdeveloped, insufficiently original, ethically problematic, unintelligible, duplicative, or unlikely to reach the journal’s minimum standard through reasonable revision.
Editorial screening is a scientific and administrative quality-control stage; it is not evidence that a manuscript has completed peer review.
The Secretariat checks file completeness, journal template, English abstract, author information, required declarations, initial writing quality, and compliance with the Guide for Authors. Incomplete or incorrectly prepared submissions may be returned for correction without external review.
The Editor-in-Chief, a responsible editor, or the editorial council evaluates subject fit, importance of the problem, apparent originality, research structure, methodological adequacy, integrity indicators, and potential contribution. The manuscript may be desk rejected or returned for pre-review revision.
At least two reviewers are selected according to expertise, relevant academic or professional record, independence, availability, ethical reliability, and prior review quality. Invitations and responses are managed through the journal system.
Reviewers assess originality, methods, data, analysis, findings, conclusions, references, clarity, limitations, and research ethics. Reminders may be sent; when delay becomes unreasonable, the editor may withdraw the invitation and appoint a replacement reviewer.
The possible outcomes include reject, major revision, minor revision, conditional acceptance, or scientific acceptance. When reports conflict, lack adequate reasoning, or do not cover a material issue, the editor may seek a third review or an additional specialist opinion.
Authors submit a revised manuscript and a clear, complete, numbered response to every reviewer and editorial comment within the assigned period. A comment that is not accepted must be addressed through a respectful and evidence-based explanation.
The Editor-in-Chief, responsible editor, or one or more original reviewers compare the revision and response with the previous comments. Inadequate, selective, or unsupported revision may lead to another round, rejection, or closure of the file.
After completing the assessment, the final reasoned decision is issued with the approval of the Editor-in-Chief and, where relevant, authorized scientific bodies. Acceptance certificates are issued electronically only.
Official payment instructions are sent to the corresponding author only after final scientific acceptance. The article then proceeds to language and technical editing, layout, author proof review, quality control, DOI assignment, and electronic publication.
Reviewers should have relevant subject and methodological competence. An invitation is not based solely on title, institutional position, or general reputation; expertise must match the manuscript sufficiently.
Reviewers must disclose financial, personal, institutional, academic, professional, competitive, supervisory, collaborative, or other interests that could reasonably affect impartiality. The editor determines whether reassignment is needed.
Manuscripts, data, correspondence, reports, reviewer identities, and editorial records are confidential. Reviewers must not use unpublished information, contact authors, delegate the review without permission, or disclose the process.
Reports should be specific, constructive, evidence-based, respectful, and proportionate. Unsupported rejection, personal remarks, discriminatory language, intentional delay, and unnecessary demands are inconsistent with journal policy.
Citation suggestions must have a genuine scientific purpose. Reviewers and editors must not coerce citations to themselves, associates, the journal, an institution, or a coordinated group for metric enhancement.
The journal may replace a delayed, unavailable, conflicted, superficial, or unsuitable reviewer and may seek an additional opinion when the decision would benefit from further specialist assessment.
The manuscript is normally rejected unless the Editor-in-Chief identifies a documented scientific reason for additional assessment or detects a material weakness in one or both reports.
The manuscript is commonly rejected or, in an exceptional case supported by its potential contribution and the quality of the reports, referred to a third reviewer.
The manuscript is returned for major or minor revision and a complete point-by-point response. Revision is an invitation to improve the work and does not itself guarantee acceptance.
The Editor-in-Chief may conduct an independent scientific assessment, consult a responsible editor, request clarification, or appoint a third reviewer.
Material revisions must be completed and verified before a final decision. Acceptance by one reviewer does not remove unresolved scientific concerns.
The editor may seek clarification, discount unsupported recommendations, request another report, or independently evaluate whether the evidence supports the proposed outcome.
Reproduce or identify each comment, state the action taken, identify where the manuscript changed, and provide a scientific explanation when a suggestion is not adopted.
Upload the clean and marked versions requested by the journal. Do not conceal deleted data, altered analyses, changed authorship, modified conclusions, or new limitations introduced during revision.
Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers. Minor revisions may be checked editorially or externally. The editor may seek new review if the manuscript changes substantially or a new specialist issue emerges.
Authors should submit within the stated period. A reasonable extension may be requested before the deadline through the journal system or official email, identifying the manuscript and explaining the need.
Failure to respond within the assigned or extended period, without explanation, may result in administrative closure. A later submission may be treated as a new manuscript and assessed under the policies then in force.
Completion of requested revisions does not guarantee acceptance when a material scientific, ethical, legal, methodological, or scope-related problem remains or becomes apparent during reassessment.
A manuscript submitted by the owner, Editor-in-Chief, an editor, Editorial Board member, reviewer, employee, or close collaborator is subject to the same scientific requirements and must be handled independently. The author concerned must not select reviewers, access confidential reports improperly, or participate in the decision.
Review may be paused while the journal assesses suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, authorship concerns, duplicate submission, undisclosed conflicts, rights violations, review manipulation, or another credible integrity issue under the Publication Ethics policy.
Manuscripts, reviewer reports, identities, data, correspondence, and editorial deliberations are restricted to persons who require access for legitimate scientific, administrative, technical, ethical, or legal purposes.
Authors, reviewers, and editors remain personally responsible for the accuracy, reasoning, originality, confidentiality, and integrity of their work and decisions. An AI system cannot be an author, reviewer, editor, or accountable decision-maker.
An appeal should identify a material scientific or procedural error in the decision, cite the relevant report or policy, and provide a concise, evidence-based explanation. Mere disagreement with an unfavorable outcome is not sufficient.
A complaint may address confidentiality, an unmanaged conflict, inappropriate communication, unreasonable delay, technical failure, discrimination, or a material departure from the published process.
A documented integrity concern should identify the manuscript, article, data, image, citation, identity, or process at issue and provide verifiable evidence. The journal may seek explanations, records, or institutional assistance.
Submission and scientific assessment are free of charge. After final scientific acceptance, the article processing charge covers peer-review administration, editorial quality control, language and technical editing, layout, DOI assignment, and electronic publication. The charge has no influence on editorial screening, reviewer selection, reviewer reports, revision requirements, acceptance, rejection, appeal, ethics investigation, correction, or retraction.
CPJ seeks to assess manuscripts with appropriate scientific care, reasonable timeliness, specialist peer review, documented decisions, and respect for authors’ and reviewers’ rights. A complete, well-prepared submission and a disciplined, point-by-point revision are the most effective contributions authors can make to an efficient review process.
