Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer review assists the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
Promptness: Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.
Standards of objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author(s) is not acceptable. Reviewers should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author(s). Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.
On behalf of the editorial board of the Resilient Construction and Design (RCD) journal, the Editor-in-Chief wishes to acknowledge and sincerely thank the reviewers for their time and effort in evaluating the papers published in the issues of the Resilient Construction and Design (RCD) journal.