Cement and Concrete Research Submission Process

This page was built from Cement and Concrete Research's ScienceDirect journal page, its current Guide for Authors, Elsevier's submission-and-decision guidance, Elsevier's Editorial Manager status explainer, Cement's companion-journal guide, and Manusights pre-submission analysis of cement chemistry, hydration, supplementary cementitious materials, durability, rheology, fiber-reinforced concrete, recycled binder, microstructure, and modeling manuscripts. Last reviewed: July 17, 2026.

Official source facts checked in this pass include Cement and Concrete Research's aims and scope, article types, peer-review model, current journal insights, APC/subscription options, Editor-in-Chief listing, companion-journal route, Editorial Manager status states, Article Transfer Service, and Elsevier's general post-submission editorial process.

Key current details: the journal lists an APC of USD 5,440 excluding taxes for open access, subscription publication with no publication fee charged to authors, single-anonymized peer review, minimum two reviewers for suitable submissions, and no mandatory page charges. Verify the current Editor-in-Chief on the journal's editorial-board page before quoting any name in a cover letter.

Recent Cement and Concrete Research article records checked while validating the process show the breadth expected at review: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2026.108159 for carbonation-induced self-healing of UHPFRC, 10.1016/j.cemconres.2026.108155 for sodium effects in belite-ye'elimite-ternesite clinker synthesis and hydration, and 10.1016/j.cemconres.2026.108146 for ettringite morphology and packing properties.

• https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/cement-and-concrete-research
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/cement-and-concrete-research/publish/guide-for-authors
• https://www.elsevier.com/publishing/publish-in-a-journal/submission-and-decision
• https://www.elsevier.support/publishing/answer/what-does-the-status-of-my-submission-mean-in-editorial-manager
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/cement/publish/guide-for-authors

Cement and Concrete Research's official scope centers the materials science and engineering of cementitious materials. The process is therefore deciding whether the uploaded package makes a broad, reviewable materials-science contribution.

The editor is usually asking:

• Does the paper explain a cementitious-materials mechanism rather than report a local mix-design improvement?
• Does the work connect chemistry, hydration, microstructure, pore structure, rheology, transport, degradation, modeling, or real-structure diagnosis to performance?
• Is the result broad enough for Cement and Concrete Research rather than a construction-application, structural, composite, or companion open-access route?
• Can reviewers reproduce the mix design, curing, exposure, specimen age, testing sequence, model assumptions, and characterization logic?
• Are novelty, quality, and potential assimilation clear enough to justify sending the paper to expert reviewers?

This is why the process page is distinct from the requirements guide. The guide says what belongs in the package. This page explains how the package is screened after upload.

Do not submit until the manuscript can survive both Elsevier's file checks and the Cement and Concrete Research fit screen.

If the first page does not teach the editor what is new about cementitious materials, the process is already risky.

Elsevier says most journals use Editorial Manager, and authors can begin from a journal page by selecting the "submit your article" route. For Cement and Concrete Research, start from the ScienceDirect journal page and verify the current Guide for Authors before final upload.

Before confirmation, check:

• article type: Research Paper, Review, Communication, or Discussion;
• title page, abstract, keywords, highlights, figures, tables, supplementary files, and source files;
• author details, funding, declarations, competing interests, and generative-AI disclosure if applicable;
• research data statement, data links, and any co-submitted Research Elements;
• permissions for reused figures or material;
• graphical abstract or artwork requirements if used;
• mechanism claim, mix-design reproducibility, and cementitious-materials scope in the cover letter.

The portal can receive a complete file set before the scientific route is safe. The editor still has to see why this belongs in Cement and Concrete Research.

Elsevier's status explainer says the journal's editorial team checks the submission and either sends it back to the author for action or assigns it to an editor. Most journals assign a manuscript number at initial submission or when the first editor is assigned.

For Cement and Concrete Research, initial quality-check friction usually appears around:

• authorship details or author-order corrections;
• missing declarations or competing-interest statements;
• ethical approval or permission statements where the work uses field samples, commercial materials, image permissions, or related approvals;
• article-type mismatch for Communications or Discussions;
• incomplete files, figures, tables, or supplementary material;
• unclear data availability statement, source data, or model assumptions;
• missing permissions for reused content;
• weak generative-AI disclosure where applicable;
• unclear cover-letter route for a paper that may fit another cement or construction-materials journal.

These issues are fixable, but they slow the path to editor assessment and make the first process signal weaker.

After assignment, the editor screens suitability for the journal. Elsevier says this initial screening considers factors such as novelty and scope, and papers may be rejected before peer review if they do not meet the assessment criteria. Elsevier also says transfer options may be recommended when another journal is a better match.

Editorial triage is where many otherwise competent concrete papers lose time. The manuscript must look like a Cement and Concrete Research paper before reviewers are invited.

Cement and Concrete Research's journal-specific peer-review feature is single-blind peer review, described by Elsevier as single-anonymized review. The Guide for Authors says suitable submissions are typically sent to a minimum of two reviewers for independent expert assessment, and that the editors take the accept/reject decision.

Reviewers usually test:

• whether the cementitious system and mechanism are defined precisely;
• whether the mix design, curing, age, exposure, and testing conditions are reproducible;
• whether characterization explains performance rather than appearing as supporting decoration;
• whether durability claims match exposure, aging, transport, or degradation evidence;
• whether modeling assumptions are validated against measured behavior;
• whether the manuscript belongs in Cement and Concrete Research rather than a neighboring journal.

This guide tells you what Cement and Concrete Research editors look for in the process; the review tells you whether YOUR paper passes that process before upload. The reviewer-count expectation should stay flexible: the journal says suitable submissions are typically sent to at least two reviewers, but the practical review split may include cement chemistry, microstructure, durability, rheology, modeling, and application-performance expertise. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.

Elsevier lists four possible post-review outcomes: Revise, Accept, Reject, or Transfer. Its Editorial Manager status explainer also names With Editor, Under Review, Required Reviews Completed, Decision in Process, Revise, Completed - Accept/Reject, Transfer Pending, and Submission Transferred.

A strong revision does not merely answer comments line by line. It should repair the mechanism, evidence, model, or routing issue that created the reviewer concern.

AIO-citable timing range: use 7 days as the current first-decision benchmark, 68 days as the current decision-after-review benchmark, and 137 days as the current submission-to-acceptance benchmark; complex or delayed edge cases extend when reviewers are hard to secure, reports conflict, or the paper needs major evidence repair.

The current journal insights are useful, but they do not mean every paper receives full peer review within a week. A fast first decision can be an editorial screen. A review-routed paper depends on reviewer availability and whether the manuscript sits cleanly inside a technical subfield.

The process should be interpreted around manuscript fit, not status anxiety.

In our pre-submission review work for Cement and Concrete Research and adjacent cement/concrete routes, the strongest process signals appear before upload. Official pages describe the workflow; they do not tell authors which manuscript components change the odds of passing editor triage. In our work, the process outcome usually turns on whether the manuscript converts a measurement set into a cementitious-materials insight.

We see the same editorial triage pattern across CCR-targeted drafts: editors specifically look for the figure or method that connects binder chemistry, microstructure, transport, degradation, rheology, or modeling to performance. Editorial policy states the editor screens novelty and scope before review, so Manusights submission analysis treats the first process question as a manuscript-specific route test rather than a portal-completion task.

Mix-design result without a materials mechanism. The manuscript improves compressive strength, workability, shrinkage, permeability, or another property, but the binder, hydration, pore structure, interfacial transition zone, or transport mechanism remains vague. That can pass upload and still fail the first editorial read.

Check whether your CCR mix-design result has a materials mechanism →

Durability claim without matched exposure evidence. The manuscript claims long-term durability from short exposure, one proxy property, or incomplete aging logic. Cement and Concrete Research reviewers need the exposure and degradation pathway to match the claim.

Check whether your CCR durability evidence matches the claim →

Characterization disconnected from performance. The manuscript includes XRD, TGA, MIP, SEM, NMR, tomography, calorimetry, nanoindentation, thermodynamic modeling, or machine learning, but does not show how those outputs explain the measured behavior.

Check whether your CCR characterization explains performance →

Wrong neighboring-journal route. The work may be good but better suited to Cement, Cement and Concrete Composites, Construction and Building Materials, Materials and Structures, or a structural/civil-engineering journal. Transfer is cleaner than forcing a weak CCR fit.

Check whether CCR is the right cement/concrete route →

• Cement and Concrete Research submission guide
• Construction and Building Materials submission guide
• Construction and Building Materials under review
• Engineering Structures submission guide
• Cover Letter Journal Submission Template

Before upload, run a Cement and Concrete Research submission-process review. It checks whether the process will see a generalizable cementitious-materials contribution, not just a complete file set.