Construction and Building Materials Submission Guide: Requirements, Formatting and What Editors Want

Official and generic pages for Construction and Building Materials submission usually focus on formatting, upload files, and generic Elsevier requirements. The official publisher guidance is more specific about scope than those pages usually show: the journal considers construction and building materials, but excludes papers focused mainly on structural engineering, materials chemistry, geotechnics, mining, backfill, soil or rock mechanics, and unbound road or railway bed layers.

That distinction matters before upload. A manuscript can have strong materials characterization and still be a weak fit if the main figures do not demonstrate performance in a construction or repair context. The editorial triage pattern is whether the editor can see the application, durability logic, and construction-scale consequence before assigning reviewers.

Source: Clarivate Journal Citation Reports 2024; Elsevier journal information

Construction and Building Materials is a selective Elsevier journal covering civil engineering, structural materials, sustainability, and building technology. Its approximately % acceptance30 rate reflects the journal's consistent emphasis on construction relevance and complete durability evidence over materials characterization alone.

Main text: 7,000-10,000 words

This includes:

• Introduction: 1,000-1,500 words (construction relevance, literature context, gap your work fills)

• Materials and Methods: 1,500-2,000 words (detailed testing procedures, standards used, material sourcing)

• Results: 2,000-2,500 words (data presentation, durability curves, comparison with baseline)

• Discussion: 1,500-2,000 words (interpretation, construction implications, limitations, future work)

• Conclusions: 400-600 words (practical impact summary)

NOT included in word count: References, figure captions, supporting information, author declarations.

Target: 6-8 figures, 2-4 tables

Figures should clearly communicate construction relevance:

• Durability curves with error bars showing long-term performance

• Comparative graphs (your material vs. conventional baseline)

• Microstructure images with scale bars and explanation

• Cost-benefit graphs or material property tradeoff charts

• Construction scale diagrams or application schematics

Figure quality: High resolution (300-600 dpi), clear legends, axis labels with units, data sources cited.

Prepare optional supplementary files (not required but strongly recommended):

• Extended durability data: Full testing curves, raw data, statistical analysis

• Material characterization: XRD patterns, SEM images, mechanical property details

• Testing procedures: Detailed ASTM/EN standard references, custom test method justifications

• Cost breakdown: Material sourcing costs, manufacturing scale-up analysis, cost projections

• Environmental impact: Life-cycle assessment data, carbon footprint calculations

Supporting information is excellent for durability curves (20-30 pages of durability data shows completion), material characterization, and cost modeling.

• Font: Times New Roman, 12pt

• Spacing: Double-spaced throughout (including references and figure captions)

• Margins: 1 inch all sides

• Line numbers: Number all lines (helps reviewers cite specific text)

• Page numbers: Bottom right of each page

Use numbered section headings throughout:

• Level 1 (H1): Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions, Acknowledgments, References

• Level 2 (H2): Major subsections (e.g., "2.1 Material Sourcing", "2.2 Durability Testing Procedures")

• Level 3 (H3): Minor subsections where needed for clarity

Style: Numbered citation system (Vancouver style): [1], [2], etc.

Format: Author(s). Title of article. Journal Name year; volume:pages.

Example: Smith JA, Johnson BC, Williams D. Durability of recycled concrete aggregates in freeze-thaw cycles. Construction and Building Materials 2023; 408:137234.

Completeness: Include all references cited in text, DOIs where available.

First-time users will need to create an Elsevier account and enter the following author and affiliation details before the submission form becomes available:

• Full names of all authors

• Email address (corresponding author)

• Institutional affiliations

• Research area keywords

Required files:

• Manuscript: .docx or .pdf (single file with title page, abstract, text, figures, captions, references)

• Figures: High-resolution individual figure files (.tif, .png, .jpg; 300-600 dpi)

• Supplementary information: Optional.pdf files with additional data

Title page should include:

• Full manuscript title

• All author names, institutions, email addresses

• Corresponding author designation

• Abbreviated running title (40 characters max)

• 5-8 keywords

• Length: 1-2 pages, single-spaced

Content to include:

• Paragraph 1 - Hook: State the construction problem your research addresses.

Example: "Concrete durability in marine environments remains the leading cause of structural maintenance costs in coastal construction. Our work addresses this challenge by developing..."

• Paragraph 2 - Why this journal: Explain why Construction and Building Materials is the right venue.

Example: "Construction and Building Materials is the ideal venue because your journal prioritizes construction-scale durability testing and cost-benefit analysis - both central to our work."

• Paragraph 3 - Novelty and impact: Highlight what makes this work novel and why it matters.

Example: "Unlike previous approaches that focus on short-term strength, we demonstrate long-term durability under freeze-thaw cycling (100+ cycles) and show 35% cost reduction compared with conventional reinforcement."

• Paragraph 4 - Duplication statement: Declare that the work is original and not under review elsewhere.

Example: "This manuscript has not been published previously and is not under consideration elsewhere. All authors have approved the final manuscript."

• Closing: Thank the editor and provide corresponding author contact information.

Required declarations:

• Conflict of Interest: Disclose any financial or personal relationships with publishers, competing companies, or funding sources that might bias your work

• Data Availability: State whether data will be made publicly available (recommended: yes)

• Funding: List funding sources and grant numbers

• Author Contributions: Briefly describe each author's role

• Submitting without durability testing: Desk rejection nearly guaranteed. Durability testing is non-negotiable.

• Vague construction application: "Novel material with improved properties" is insufficient. State specifically what construction problem this solves.

• Incomplete cost analysis: Failing to compare costs with conventional alternatives. Include material costs, manufacturing, and implementation costs.

• Poor figure quality: Low-resolution figures, missing error bars, unclear legends slow down review.

• Too much methodology, not enough results: The journal wants results and construction implications, not endless methods description.

• Missing references to recent literature: Show you understand the current state of the field.

Final check before submission: Ensure your manuscript clearly demonstrates what construction problem you solve, that durability is experimentally proven, cost is analyzed, and scalability is addressed. If you can't answer these four questions clearly, revise before submitting.

Before submitting, a Construction and Building Materials submission readiness check can catch the fit, framing, and methodology gaps that editors screen for on first read.

For Construction and Building Materials submissions, the editorial timeline runs through four phases. CBM editors weight built-environment performance heavily, and the timeline reflects how that weighting plays out at each stage.

Day 0 to 5: Editorial Manager intake and format check

Elsevier Editorial Manager intake handles format compliance + author-disclosure check. The most common Day 0-5 hold-up we see: missing built-environment context in the abstract. Papers framed as pure materials science get bounced for cover-letter revision before reaching the scope screen.

Day 5 to 18: Editor scope screen

CBM's editor filter prioritizes durability, weathering, and service-condition performance under realistic loading. The most common Day 5-18 desk reject in our review work: lab-scale concrete or mortar studies without realistic curing or service-condition validation. The materials advance must connect to actual construction-facing performance.

Week 3 to 8: Peer review

Standard 2-3 reviewers, 3-6 week first decision target. Reviewer mix typically includes one civil-engineering applications expert plus one materials-characterization expert. Submissions missing engineering-code standard comparisons extend reviewer dialogue by 2-4 weeks.

Week 8 to 18: Decision and revision

Major revision is the common first decision at CBM. Revision rounds typically settle at 2 (rarely 3 for accepted papers). Total submission-to-acceptance: 4-7 months for accepted papers. Successful revisions usually add explicit comparison to ACI/BS/EN engineering codes and durability data under accelerated-weathering conditions.

For manuscripts targeting Construction and Building Materials, five patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections worth knowing before submission.

Construction relevance not demonstrated

The Construction and Building Materials guide for authors positions the journal as publishing research that advances construction practice, requiring manuscripts to connect material properties to specific construction problems and performance requirements under conditions representative of real use.

Manusights pre-submission pattern analysis shows many desk rejections involve manuscripts that characterize materials comprehensively but do not demonstrate how the material performs in a construction-relevant application or under construction-scale conditions. Editors specifically screen for manuscripts where the construction consequence is visible in the results figures, not only stated in the introduction.

Durability testing absent or limited to short-term idealized conditions at time of submission

The same pattern analysis often finds many submissions report mechanical properties and characterization data without long-term durability testing under conditions relevant to the intended construction application, such as freeze-thaw cycling, sustained moisture exposure, or chemical attack. In practice, editors consistently reject manuscripts where durability data is missing or limited to short-term exposure, because Construction and Building Materials treats long-term performance evidence as a baseline expectation for research claiming construction relevance.

Cost analysis missing or not benchmarked against conventional construction materials

A related pattern is that many submissions present performance improvements without addressing whether the material or process is economically viable compared to conventional alternatives already in construction use. Editors consistently screen for a direct cost comparison because the journal's editorial standard expects construction relevance to include economic feasibility alongside technical performance, and our analysis of desk rejections at Construction and Building Materials shows that missing cost data is among the most consistently cited reviewer concerns.

Check cost analysis missing or not benchmarked against conventional construction mater before submitting to Construction and Building Materials →

Characterization thorough but not mechanistically connected to construction performance outcomes

A related pattern is that many submissions present comprehensive XRD, SEM, and BET characterization without explaining how the observed microstructure or surface properties produce the reported construction performance benefit. In our analysis of desk rejections at Construction and Building Materials, this pattern is most common in nanostructured materials papers where characterization depth is substantial but the link between material structure and practical construction behavior remains asserted rather than demonstrated.

Check characterization thorough but not mechanistically connected to construction perf before submitting to Construction and Building Materials →

Cover letter describes material novelty rather than construction problem solved

A related pattern is that many submissions arrive with cover letters that focus on the synthesis method or material modification without stating which specific construction problem the work addresses and how the reported performance advantage translates to construction practice. Editors explicitly consider whether the cover letter makes the construction-relevance case before routing the paper for specialist review.

SciRev author-reported review times provide additional community benchmarks when planning your submission timeline.

Before submitting to Construction and Building Materials, a Construction and Building Materials submission readiness check identifies whether your construction relevance, durability evidence, and cost analysis meet the editorial bar before you commit to the submission.

Check cover letter describes material novelty rather than construction problem solved before submitting to Construction and Building Materials →

For CBM-targeted manuscripts, three patterns consistently predict desk-screen failure at Construction and Building Materials (Elsevier). The patterns below are the same ones CBM handling editors and outside reviewers flag at first-pass triage.

Scope-fit ambiguity in the abstract. CBM editors move fastest on manuscripts whose contribution is obviously aligned with construction-materials research with quantified mechanical-property characterization and engineering-application validation. The named failure pattern: papers without explicit comparison to engineering-code standards extend revision rounds. Check whether your abstract reads to CBM's scope

Methods package incomplete for the journal's reviewer pool. CBM reviewers expect specific methodological detail. Characterization without quantified mechanical-property data extends reviewer consultation. Check if your methods package is reviewer-complete

Reference-list and clean-citation failure mode. Editorial team at Construction and Building Materials (Elsevier) screens reference lists for retracted-paper inclusion. Check whether your reference list is clean against Crossref + Retraction Watch

Editorial evidence signal for Construction and Building Materials (Elsevier). Our review of public author guidance, recent published article packages, and Manusights pre-submission review patterns points to this practical risk: Cbm reviewers expect quantified mechanical-property data with explicit comparison to engineering codes (astm, en). Treat this as a fit-and-artifact screen rather than a private outcome claim; official journal pages remain authoritative for submission mechanics and policy requirements.