Publication Criteria To be published in Journal of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering (JCAEE), a paper must be technically correct and scientifically valid. It should contain enough technical information to enable peers to corroborate results and follow the details of the work described. Reviewer Selection As a peer-reviewed journal,reviewer selection is critical to the review process. Reviewers are limited to researchers who are expert with a track record of published papers in the field of the paper to be reviewed. Reviewers are invited by email and invitations to review a manuscript are confidential. Timing Reviewers are expected to complete the review within four weeks, very preferably in two weeks.If in any condition a reviewer is difficult to complete the review in time, please notify us without delay. Online Manuscript Review Reviewers must submit their comments via our online submission system by following the link provided in the invitation email. The reviewers should answer the questions below, and provide constructive comments and suggestions to the authors. 1. Is the paper an original contribution? Original work Minor extension of known technique Nothing specially new Plagiarism 2. How do you rate the significance of the paper? High value of current interest Marginal value of current interest No significant value No value 3. Is the paper technical soundness and scientific validity? Yes Partially No 4. Are the results reliable? Yes Partially No 5. Are the references presented appropriately? Yes Partially No 6. How about the comprehensibility? Well written, easily understood Several reading are needed to understand Virtually unreadable 7. Is there any unethical issue in the paper? Yes No 8. How do you rate the quality of this paper? Excellent Good Average Marginal Poor 9. What is your recommendation? Accept – without revision Accept - with minor revisionsas listed incomments Accept - with major revisionsas listed incomments Reconsider - after major revisionsas listed incomments Reject - fragmentation/lack of novelty or significanceas indicated in comments Reject - scientific illogicalityas indicated in comments Reject - other reasons as indicated in comments 10. Please list further your comments and suggestions constructive for the authors to improve the scientific quality andpresentationof the paper. If you recommend rejecting the paper, please provide the reasons. Comments: