Construction and Building Materials Acceptance Rate: How Hard Is It to Get Published?

The actual numbers

Construction and Building Materials receives approximately 2,000-2,400 submissions per year. Final numbers:

• Total submissions: ~2,200/year
• Desk rejections: ~800-900 (35-40%)
• Sent to peer review: ~1,300-1,400
• Accepted after review: ~400-500 (30-35% of those reviewed)
• Final acceptance rate: ~20-23% of all submissions

These numbers place it well above open-access journals like PLOS ONE (40-50% acceptance) but below truly selective journals like Nature Materials (5-8%) or Science (7-10%).

The high desk rejection rate: What triggers it

35-40% desk rejection is unusually high for a subject-specific journal and signals the editor is very selective about what reaches peer review. Desk-rejected papers typically have one or more of these problems:

1. Missing construction relevance

Most desk rejections cite lack of construction application. If your paper is purely material characterization—microstructure, mechanical properties, theoretical modeling—without explaining what construction problem it solves, expect desk rejection.

Example rejection reason: "Interesting material chemistry, but unclear construction application. How does this improve durability, cost, or structural performance in real construction?"

2. No durability data

Construction and Building Materials expects durability testing for new materials or modifications. Proposing a new concrete mix or material modification without freeze-thaw cycles, wet-dry cycles, or accelerated aging data is high desk-rejection risk.

The editor knows from experience: materials without durability data rarely survive peer review, so why waste reviewer time?

3. Incomplete or preliminary work

Papers submitted with incomplete testing, missing comparisons with baseline materials, or preliminary results get desk-rejected. This journal expects finished work, not works-in-progress.

4. Poor construction market positioning

A paper that proposes a material costing 10x more than conventional alternatives without addressing why, or a material requiring exotic processing unavailable at construction scale, faces desk rejection. Construction is cost-sensitive.

5. Out of scope

Pure chemistry or physics without building material context. If your paper would fit better in a materials science or chemistry journal, expect desk rejection from Construction and Building Materials.

What actually gets accepted

Papers accepted by Construction and Building Materials typically share these characteristics:

• Clear construction problem solved. The paper demonstrates how the material improves durability, reduces cost, enhances structural performance, or supports sustainability in actual construction contexts.
• Complete durability testing. Accelerated aging studies, freeze-thaw cycles, wet-dry cycles, or salt exposure testing relevant to the application.
• Cost-benefit analysis. Direct comparison with conventional materials showing performance-to-cost tradeoff.
• Scalability analysis. Evidence the material can be manufactured and used at construction scale with standard equipment.
• Environmental impact assessment. Carbon footprint, recyclability, or life-cycle assessment addressing sustainability.
• Strong methodology. Appropriate testing standards (ASTM, EN), adequate sample sizes, rigorous statistical analysis.

Submission strategy given these numbers

Only submit if:

• Your paper demonstrates construction-scale durability and performance testing
• You have cost analysis comparing your material with conventional alternatives
• Construction industry would realistically adopt your material or process
• Your work is complete and polished—no preliminary stages

Consider other journals if:

• Your work is purely material characterization without construction application
• You lack durability testing data
• Your material has significant cost barriers without clear benefits
• Your work is theoretical or computational without experimental validation

The 30-35% acceptance rate after review reflects genuine selectivity, not just volume filtering. Peer reviewers will scrutinize construction relevance, durability completeness, and practical feasibility. Plan for substantial revisions or resubmission elsewhere.