Construction and Building Materials 'Under Review': What Each Status Means

Construction and Building Materials operates the Elsevier handling editor + associate editor model. The handling editor reads the entire paper and evaluates construction materials significance, engineering relevance, methodology rigor, and Construction and Building Materials subspecialty routing across concrete and cement, steel and reinforcement, timber and wood, composite materials, recycled materials, and sustainable construction materials.

A handling editor at Construction and Building Materials typically handles 60 to 100 manuscripts per quarter and spends 30 to 60 minutes on the initial read; Construction and Building Materials handling editors are working academic construction materials researchers fitting Construction and Building Materials editorial work around their own laboratories.

Construction and Building Materials editorial culture is decisive: editors filter for scope and engineering relevance. Papers that pass the Construction and Building Materials handling editor desk screen have cleared the steepest filter in Elsevier construction materials publishing.

Before the paper reaches external reviewers, a Construction and Building Materials handling editor evaluates whether the construction materials significance and engineering relevance warrant Construction and Building Materials's editorial slots. About 30 to 40 percent of submissions are desk-rejected at this stage within 1 to 3 weeks.

A desk rejection most often means the handling editor concluded that the work would fit better at a sister Elsevier construction materials journal (Case Studies in Construction Materials for case studies, Construction and Building Materials in Transportation for transportation infrastructure) or that the construction materials scope is not met.

The Construction and Building Materials editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, Supporting Information with materials characterization data and engineering test results, Elsevier template formatting, cover letter directed to the editor naming the construction materials contribution, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics-statement documentation, and data-availability statement.

For Construction and Building Materials, the technical check is not just a formatting pass. Elsevier staff confirm that the files are complete, that the journal scope is recognizably construction materials rather than generic materials science, and that originality checks do not surface overlap that would stop the paper before a handling editor evaluates the engineering evidence.

The handling editor reads the paper and evaluates construction materials significance, engineering relevance, methodology rigor, and Construction and Building Materials subspecialty routing. This is the desk-screen window, so a status that stays at With Editor without moving to Under Review means the editor has not yet decided whether to invite reviewers.

Most papers that clear this stage do so within one to three weeks. If the status changes to Under Review, the construction-materials and engineering-relevance bar has been met and 2 to 3 reviewers are being recruited. If it changes to a decision instead, the editor has chosen to desk-reject or transfer the paper before peer review.

In parallel with the handling editor's primary read, ambiguous-fit papers are discussed across the Elsevier Construction and Building Materials editorial team where peer handling editors weigh in on whether the paper would fit better at Construction and Building Materials or at sister Elsevier construction journals. This editor consultation runs alongside the desk-screen and adds 3 to 5 days to the timeline that is invisible to the author in the portal.

Construction and Building Materials handling editors typically invite 2 to 3 reviewers with construction materials expertise. The journal's broad scope within construction materials means reviewer matching is usually efficient. Reviewer recruitment typically takes 7 to 14 days.

Once 2 to 3 reviewers agree to review, the typical Construction and Building Materials peer-review cycle lasts 3 to 6 weeks per reviewer, contributing to the 4 to 8 week first-decision target.

After reports return, the handling editor synthesizes them and reconciles any disagreement between reviewers before writing the decision. The status usually moves through Required Reviews Complete and Decision Pending during this stage, each adding roughly one to two weeks.

Total submission-to-acceptance commonly runs 3 to 5 months for successful papers, including revision rounds. A major-revision decision returns the paper to the same reviewers, so plan for a second review cycle of similar length rather than an immediate accept.

• Rejection within 1 to 7 days: Technical check rejection (language, scope, originality) per Elsevier policy.

• Rejection within 7 to 21 days: Construction and Building Materials handling editor desk rejection per the 30 to 40 percent figure.

• Still Under Review after 3 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed the Construction and Building Materials handling editor desk screen.

• Still Under Review after 10 weeks: Reviewer-recruitment or reviewer-report delay. A polite inquiry via the Editorial Manager portal is appropriate.

• Status changes to "Decision in Process": Reports are in; expect a decision within 2 to 3 weeks.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from Construction and Building Materials authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 6 weeks at Under Review puts you in the normal middle of Construction and Building Materials's 4 to 8 week first-decision distribution. Reports may already be in editorial synthesis with the handling editor preparing the recommendation. Most reviewer-driven delays come from reviewer-recruitment timing for construction materials subspecialty experts rather than slow reviews.

If the portal still says Under Review at the 9-week mark, the most likely explanation is that one of the assigned reviewers asked for an extension and the handling editor granted it. This is normal practice at Construction and Building Materials.

What you should NOT do during the 6-to-9-week window is email the editorial office. Construction and Building Materials handling editors are working academic construction materials researchers managing 60+ active papers per quarter; an inquiry at 6 weeks adds friction without accelerating the timeline.

If your Construction and Building Materials paper is rejected after review, the natural cascade depends on what the reviewers and handling editor cited:

Case Studies in Construction Materials (Elsevier) is the natural Elsevier case-study cascade.

Construction and Building Materials in Transportation (Elsevier) is the Elsevier transportation-infrastructure cascade.

Cement and Concrete Composites (Elsevier) is the Elsevier cement-composite cascade.

Cement and Concrete Research (Elsevier) is the Elsevier cement-research cascade.

Engineering Structures (Elsevier) is the Elsevier structural-engineering cascade.

Journal of Building Engineering (Elsevier) is the Elsevier broader building engineering cascade.

Materials and Structures (Springer/RILEM) is the external Springer cascade for materials and structures.

Elsevier asks reviewers at Construction and Building Materials to evaluate four things specifically. The table below maps each to actionable preparation.

Across Construction and Building Materials manuscripts, we see three named patterns generate the most consistent reviewer concerns and the most common reasons papers miss the editorial bar or fail the desk screen. These are not generic writing problems. They are evidence-assembly problems that show up in the manuscript, mix-design table, curing protocol, ASTM/EN/ISO method references, durability data, microstructure figures, benchmark table, and engineering-use claim.

Generic materials science framing flagged at handling editor desk screen. When the work presents generic materials science without construction engineering context, Construction and Building Materials desk rejection within 1 to 3 weeks is common. The strongest manuscripts frame the construction engineering application explicitly.

Missing standard testing protocols surface as reviewer concerns. When experimental methods do not reference standard testing protocols (ASTM, EN, ISO), reviewers consistently request additional protocol documentation. The strongest revisions include standard testing protocol references.

Elsevier construction materials cascade offers from handling editor. When the handling editor concludes the work is rigorous but the broad construction materials bar is not met, transfer offers to Cement and Concrete Composites (cement-composites), Engineering Structures (structural engineering), or Case Studies in Construction Materials (case studies) are common. Elsevier editors take these transfers seriously.

Check whether your Construction and Building Materials standards table is reviewer-ready ->

Check whether your Construction and Building Materials durability evidence supports the engineering claim ->

Check whether your Construction and Building Materials venue routing is stronger than the sister-journal cascade ->

A typical Construction and Building Materials near-miss has enough data to be publishable somewhere, but the data are not assembled as a construction-materials decision. We often see compressive strength, flexural strength, water absorption, chloride penetration, SEM, XRD, FTIR, or life-cycle evidence distributed across figures without one table that proves the engineering claim. Reviewers then ask whether the finding is material-specific, lab-condition-specific, or construction-relevant.

Stronger manuscripts make the control mix and proposed mix visible in the same frame, label the curing and exposure conditions consistently, and explain why the microstructure result changes a field decision such as pavement durability, structural repair, recycled aggregate use, or service-life prediction.

The second repeated failure is an overclaim on sustainability or recycled-material value. Construction and Building Materials reviewers are usually receptive to lower-carbon, waste-derived, and circular-economy materials, but the paper still has to show performance under plausible construction conditions. A manuscript that says "sustainable" while hiding workability, durability, variability, or supply-chain constraints looks promotional rather than engineering-grade. The stronger version states the benefit, the limitation, and the use case in the same paragraph.

The third failure is routing. A cement-hydration mechanism paper may belong at Cement and Concrete Research; a structural-response paper may belong at Engineering Structures; a narrow case study may belong at Case Studies in Construction Materials. The status window is the right time to prepare this routing logic because a rejection after review often points directly to the better next venue.

This page was created from Elsevier's public Construction and Building Materials guide for authors, Elsevier Editorial Manager documentation, and Manusights pre-submission review experience with Construction and Building Materials-targeted manuscripts.

Source limitations matter. Official guidance describes workflow mechanics, so the reviewer-risk guidance here is inferred from those sources plus Manusights manuscript-review patterns, not from private editorial records. In Manusights' manuscript-review archive, 50+ construction-materials and civil-engineering manuscripts turned on whether the standards, benchmark, durability, and construction-use evidence were packaged in the way this journal's reviewers expect.

For the construction materials landscape beyond Construction and Building Materials, start with the Construction and Building Materials journal hub, Construction and Building Materials submission guide, and Construction and Building Materials cover letter guide.

Then compare nearby routes such as Case Studies in Construction Materials, Construction and Building Materials in Transportation, Cement and Concrete Composites, Cement and Concrete Research, Engineering Structures, Journal of Building Engineering, and Materials and Structures.

The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is broad construction materials, case studies, transportation infrastructure, cement-composites, cement research, structural engineering, broader building engineering, or RILEM materials and structures.

Reviewers at Construction and Building Materials typically draw from 2 to 3 construction materials subspecialty experts under the Elsevier single-anonymized model. Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any reviewer sees them, and preparing a response template that addresses both construction materials significance and engineering relevance accelerates revision rounds substantially.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the Construction and Building Materials construction-engineering-relevance bar before submission, our Construction and Building Materials pre-submission diagnostic flags the engineering-relevance and standard-testing-protocol weaknesses most likely to surface in the handling editor desk screen.