About the Journal

Focus and Scope

International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability is an international peer-reviewed journal addressing the present researches, developments and best practices in the field of urban and regional planning, architecture, quantity survey and infrastructure in view of social, cultural, economic and environmental sustainability at local, regional and global levels. The articles may cover various topics above that of interests to the researchers, practitioners, government agencies, private sector, non-governmental organizations and local communities.

Peer Review Process

Review Policy of the IJBES

General

The International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability adopts a double-blind review process in which either reviewers or authors do not know each other. The number of reviewers is normally 2 or 3. Authors are requested to propose three (3) reviewers. However, the proposed reviewers would not be necessarily employed by the Journal to do further review process.

Criteria of Reviewers

The reviewers must be the ones who have relevant and essential expertise on the subject discussed in the manuscript. They normally hold an advance academic degree (PhD or MSc+) and excellent command of English.

Criteria used in the reviewing process

The accepted articles for publication in the IJBES is normally based on the following consideration. However, reviewers have full authority to decide on the acceptance or rejection of an article.

Novelty and innovativeness of the subject discussed in the article (new findings, new policies, new approaches, new theories, new methods, etc.): 0-60 points
The extent of (positive) impacts of the new findings/policies/approaches/theories/methods on the society: 0-40 points

Publication Frequency

IJBES is published online with a frequency of three issues per year in January, May and September every year. Application to publish special issues is opened throughout the year. Interested applicant may submit an application by sending us an email at ijbes@utm.my.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

No processing or publishing charges are presently applied for all articles published in the IJBES.

Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics*

For Authors:

1. Introduction

The publication is the final stage of research and therefore a responsibility for all researchers. Scholarly publications are expected to provide a detailed and permanent record of research. Because publications form the basis for both new research and the application of findings, they can affect not only the research community but also, indirectly, society at large. Researchers, therefore, have a responsibility to ensure that their publications are honest, clear, accurate, complete and balanced, and should avoid misleading, selective or ambiguous reporting. Journal editors also have responsibilities for ensuring the integrity of the research literature and these are set out in companion guidelines.

2. Responsible research publication

2.1 Soundness and reliability

The research being reported should have been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and follow all relevant legislation.
The research being reported should be sound and carefully executed.
Researchers should use appropriate methods of data analysis and display
Authors should take collective responsibility for their work and for the content of their publications. Researchers should check their publications carefully at all stages to ensure methods and findings are reported accurately. Authors should carefully check calculations, data presentations, typescripts/submissions and proofs.

2.2 Honesty

Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. Research images (e.g. micrographs, X-rays, pictures of electrophoresis gels) should not be modified in a misleading way.
Researchers should strive to describe their methods and to present their findings clearly and unambiguously. Researchers should follow applicable reporting guidelines. Publications should provide sufficient detail to permit experiments to be repeated by other researchers.
Reports of research should be complete. They should not omit inconvenient, inconsistent or inexplicable findings or results that do not support the authors’ or sponsors’ hypothesis or interpretation.
Research funders and sponsors should not be able to veto the publication of findings that do not favour their product or position. Researchers should not enter agreements that permit the research sponsor to veto or control the publication of the findings (unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as research classified by governments because of security implications).
Authors should alert the editor promptly if they discover an error in any submitted, accepted or published work. Authors should cooperate with editors in issuing corrections or retractions when required.
Authors should represent the work of others accurately in citations and quotations.
Authors should not copy references from other publications if they have not read the cited work.

2.3 Balance

New findings should be presented in the context of previous research. The work of others should be fairly represented. Scholarly reviews and syntheses of existing research should be complete, balanced, and should include findings regardless of whether they support the hypothesis or interpretation being proposed. Editorials or opinion pieces presenting a single viewpoint or argument should be clearly distinguished from scholarly reviews.
Study limitations should be addressed in publications.

2.4 Originality

Authors should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere in any language. Work should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. If articles are co-published this fact should be made clear to readers.
Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement.
Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible.
Data, text, figures or ideas originated by other researchers should be properly acknowledged and should not be presented as if they were the authors’ own. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.
Authors should inform editors if findings have been published previously or if multiple reports or multiple analyses of a single data set are under consideration for publication elsewhere. Authors should provide copies of related publications or work submitted to other journals.
Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced. Translations and adaptations for different audiences should be clearly identified as such, should acknowledge the original source, and should respect relevant copyright conventions and permission requirements. If in doubt, authors should seek permission from the original publisher before republishing any work.

2.5 Transparency

All sources of research funding, including direct and indirect financial support, supply of equipment or materials, and other support (such as specialist statistical or writing assistance) should be disclosed.
Authors should disclose the role of the research funder(s) or sponsor (if any) in the research design, execution, analysis, interpretation and reporting.
Authors should disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests and relationships that might be considered likely to affect the interpretation of their findings or which editors, reviewers or readers might reasonably wish to know. This includes any relationship to the journal, for example if editors publish their own research in their own journal. In addition, authors should follow journal and institutional requirements for disclosing competing interests.

2.6 Appropriate authorship and acknowledgement

The research literature serves as a record not only of what has been discovered but also of who made the discovery. The authorship of research publications should therefore accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting.
In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or to the publication are listed in an acknowledgement section, the criteria for authorship and acknowledgement should be agreed upon at the start of the project. Ideally, authorship criteria within a particular field should be agreed upon, published and consistently applied by research institutions, professional and academic societies, and funders. While journal editors should publish and promote accepted authorship criteria appropriate to their field, they cannot be expected to adjudicate in authorship disputes. Responsibility for the correct attribution of authorship lies with authors themselves working under the guidance of their institution. Research institutions should promote and uphold fair and accepted standards of authorship and acknowledgement. When required, institutions should adjudicate in authorship disputes and should ensure that due process is followed.
Researchers should ensure that only those individuals who meet authorship criteria (i.e. made a substantial contribution to the work) are rewarded with authorship and that deserving authors are not omitted. Institutions and journal editors should encourage practises that prevent guest, gift, and ghost authorship.
All authors should agree to be listed and should approve the submitted and accepted versions of the publication. Any change to the author list should be approved by all authors including any who have been removed from the list. The corresponding author should act as a point of contact between the editor and the other authors and should keep co-authors informed and involve them in major decisions about the publication (e.g. responding to reviewers’ comments).
Authors should not use acknowledgements misleadingly to imply a contribution or endorsement by individuals who have not, in fact, been involved with the work or given an endorsement.

Note:

Guest authors are those who do not meet accepted authorship criteria but are listed because of their seniority, reputation or supposed influence.

Gift authors are those who do meet accepted authorship criteria but are listed as a personal favour or in return for payment.

Ghost authors are those who meet authorship criteria but are not listed.

2.7 Accountability and responsibility

All authors should have read and been familiar with the reported work and should ensure that publications follow the principles set out in these guidelines. In most cases, authors will be expected to take joint responsibility for the integrity of the research and its reporting. However, if authors take responsibility only for certain aspects of the research and its reporting, this should be specified in the publication.
Authors should work with the editor or publisher to correct their work promptly if errors or omissions are discovered after publication.
Authors should abide by relevant conventions, requirements, and regulations to make materials, reagents, software or datasets available to other researchers who request them. Researchers, institutions, and funders should have clear policies for handling such requests. Authors must also follow relevant journal standards. While proper acknowledgement is expected, researchers should not demand authorship as a condition for sharing materials.
Authors should respond appropriately to post-publication comments and published correspondence. They should attempt to answer correspondents’ questions and supply clarification or additional details where needed.

2.8 Adherence to peer review and publication conventions

Authors should follow publishers’ requirements that work is not submitted to more than one publication for consideration at the same time.
Authors should inform the editor if they withdraw their work from review, or choose not to respond to reviewer comments after receiving a conditional acceptance.
Authors should respond to reviewers’ comments in a professional and timely manner.
Authors should respect publishers’ requests for press embargos and should not generally allow their findings to be reported in the press if they have been accepted for publication (but not yet published) in a scholarly publication. Authors and their institutions should liaise and cooperate with publishers to coordinate media activity (e.g. press releases and press conferences) around the publication. Press releases should accurately reflect the work and should not include statements that go further than the research findings.

For Editor:

1. Introduction

As guardians and stewards of the research record, editors should encourage authors to strive for and adhere themselves to, the highest standards of publication ethics. Furthermore, editors are in a unique position to indirectly foster responsible conduct of research through their policies and processes. To achieve the maximum effect within the research community, ideally, all editors should adhere to universal standards and good practices. While there are important differences between different fields and not all areas covered are relevant to each research community, there are important common editorial policies, processes, and principles that editors should follow to ensure the integrity of the research record.

2. Editorial Principles

2.1 Accountability and responsibility for journal content

Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.

2.2 Editorial independence and integrity

An important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is the upholding of the principle of editorial independence and integrity.

2.3 Separating decision-making from commercial considerations

Editors should make decisions on academic merit alone and take full responsibility for their decisions. Processes must be in place to separate commercial activities within a journal from editorial processes and decisions. Editors should take an active interest in the publisher’s pricing policies and strive for wide and affordable accessibility of the material they publish.
Sponsored supplements must undergo the same rigorous quality control and peer review as any other content for the journal. Decisions on such material must be made in the same way as any other journal content. The sponsorship and role of the sponsor must be clearly declared to readers.
Advertisements need to be checked so that they follow journal guidelines, should be clearly distinguishable from other content, and should not in any way be linked to scholarly content.

2.4 Editors’ relationship to the journal publisher or owner

Editors should ideally have a written contract setting out the terms and conditions of their appointment with the journal publisher or owner. The principle of editorial independence should be clearly stated in this contract. Journal publishers and owners should not have any role in decisions on content for commercial or political reasons. Publishers should not dismiss an editor because of any journal content unless there was gross editorial misconduct or an independent investigation has concluded that the editor’s decision to publish was against the journal’s scholarly mission.

2.5 Journal metrics and decision-making

Editors should not attempt to inappropriately influence their journal’s ranking by artificially increasing any journal metric. For example, it is inappropriate to demand that references to that journal’s articles are included except for genuine scholarly reasons. In general, editors should ensure that papers are reviewed on purely scholarly grounds and that authors are not pressured to cite specific publications for non-scholarly reasons.

3. Editorial confidentiality

3.1 Authors’ material

If a journal operates a system where peer reviewers are chosen by editors (rather than posting papers for all to comment as a pre-print version), editors must protect the confidentiality of authors’ material and remind reviewers to do so as well. In general, editors should not share submitted papers with editors of other journals, unless with the authors’ agreement or in cases of alleged misconduct (see below). Editors are generally under no obligation to provide material to lawyers for court cases. Editors should not give any indication of a paper’s status with the journal to anyone other than the authors. Web-based submission systems must be run in a way that prevents unauthorized access.

In the case of a misconduct investigation, it may be necessary to disclose material to third parties (e.g., an institutional investigation committee or other editors).

3.2 Reviewers

Editors should protect reviewers’ identities unless operating an open peer review system. However, if reviewers wish to disclose their names, this should be permitted.

If there is alleged or suspected reviewer misconduct it may be necessary to disclose a reviewer’s name to a third party.

4. General editorial policies

4.1 Encourage maximum transparency and complete and honest reporting

To advance knowledge in scholarly fields, it is important to understand why particular work was done, how it was planned and conducted and by whom, and what it adds to current knowledge. To achieve this understanding, maximum transparency and complete and honest reporting are crucial.

4.2 Authorship and responsibility

Journals should have a clear policy on authorship that follows the standards within the relevant field. They should give guidance in their information for authors on what is expected of an author and, if there are different authorship conventions within a field, they should state which they adhere to.

For multidisciplinary and collaborative research, it should be apparent to readers who has done what and who takes responsibility for the conduct and validity of which aspect of the research. Each part of the work should have at least one author who takes responsibility for its validity. For example, individual contributions and responsibilities could be stated in a contributor section. All authors are expected to have contributed significantly to the paper and to be familiar with its entire content and ideally, this should be declared in an authorship statement submitted to the journal.

When there are undisputed changes in authorship for appropriate reasons, editors should require that all authors (including any whose names are being removed from an author list) agree on these in writing. Authorship disputes (i.e., disagreements on who should or should not be an author before or after publication) cannot be adjudicated by editors and should be resolved at the institutional level or through other appropriate independent bodies for both published and unpublished papers. Editors should then act on the findings, for example by correcting authorship in published papers.

Journals should have a publicly declared policy on how papers submitted by editors or editorial board members are handled.

4.3 Conflicts of interest and role of the funding source

Editors should have policies that require all authors to declare any relevant financial and non-financial conflicts of interest and publish at least those that might influence a reader’s perception of a paper, alongside the paper. The funding source of the research should be declared and published, and the role of the funding source in the conception, conduct, analysis, and reporting of the research should be stated and published.

Editors should make it clear in their information for authors if in certain sections of the journal (e.g., commissioned commentaries or review articles) certain conflicts of interest preclude authorship.

4.4 Full and honest reporting and adherence to reporting guidelines

Among the most important responsibilities of editors is to maintain a high standard in scholarly literature. Although standards differ among journals, editors should work to ensure that all published papers make a substantial new contribution to their field. Editors should discourage so-called ‘salami publications’ (i.e., a publication of the minimum publishable unit of research), avoid duplicate or redundant publication unless it is fully declared and acceptable to all (e.g., publication in a different language with cross-referencing), and encourage authors to place their work in the context of previous work (i.e., to state why this work was necessary/done, what this work adds or why replication of previous work was required, and what readers should take away from it).

Journals should adopt policies that encourage full and honest reporting, for example, by requiring authors in fields where it is standard to submit protocols or study plans, and, where they exist, to provide evidence of adherence to relevant reporting guidelines. Although devised to improve reporting, adherence to reporting guidelines also makes it easier for editors, reviewers, and readers to judge the actual conduct of the research.

Digital image files, figures, and tables should adhere to the appropriate standards in the field. Images should not be inappropriately altered from the original or present findings in a misleading way.

Editors might also consider screening for plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication by using anti-plagiarism software, or for image manipulation. If plagiarism or fraudulent image manipulation is detected, this should be pursued with the authors and relevant institutions

5. Responding to criticisms and concerns

Reaction and response to published research by other researchers is an important part of scholarly debate in most fields and should generally be encouraged. In some fields, journals can facilitate this debate by publishing readers’ responses. Criticisms may be part of a general scholarly debate but can also highlight transgressions of research or publication integrity.

5.1 Ensuring the integrity of the published record - corrections

When genuine errors in published work are pointed out by readers, authors, or editors, which do not render the work invalid, a correction (or erratum) should be published as soon as possible. The online version of the paper may be corrected with a date of correction and a link to the printed erratum. If the error renders the work or substantial parts of it invalid, the paper should be retracted with an explanation as to the reason for retraction (i.e., honest error).

5.2 Ensuring the integrity of the published record – suspected research or publication misconduct

If serious concerns are raised by readers, reviewers, or others, about the conduct, validity, or reporting of academic work, editors should initially contact the authors (ideally all authors) and allow them to respond to the concerns. If that response is unsatisfactory, editors should take this to the institutional level (see below). In rare cases, mostly in the biomedical field, when concerns are very serious and the published work is likely to influence clinical practice or public health, editors should consider informing readers about these concerns, for example by issuing an ‘expression of concern’, while the investigation is ongoing. Once an investigation is concluded, the appropriate action needs to be taken by editors with an accompanying comment that explains the findings of the investigation. Editors should also respond to findings from national research integrity organizations that indicate misconduct relating to a paper published in their journal. Editors can themselves decide to retract a paper if they are convinced that serious misconduct has happened even if an investigation by an institution or national body does not recommend it.

Editors should respond to all allegations or suspicions of research or publication misconduct raised by readers, reviewers, or other editors. Editors are often the first recipients of information about such concerns and should act, even in the case of a paper that has not been accepted or has already been rejected. Beyond the specific responsibility for their journal’s publications, editors have a collective responsibility for the research record and should act whenever they become aware of potential misconduct if at all possible. Cases of possible plagiarism or duplicate/redundant publication can be assessed by editors themselves. However, in most other cases, editors should request an investigation by the institution or other appropriate bodies (after seeking an explanation from the authors first and if that explanation is unsatisfactory).

Retracted papers should be retained online, and they should be prominently marked as a retraction in all online versions, including the PDF, for the benefit of future readers.

5.3 Encourage scholarly debate

All journals should consider the best mechanism by which readers can discuss papers, voice criticisms, and add to the debate (in many fields this is done via a print or on-line correspondence section). Authors may contribute to the debate by being allowed to respond to comments and criticisms where relevant. Such scholarly debate about published work should happen in a timely manner. Editors should clearly distinguish between criticisms of the limitations of a study and criticisms that raise the possibility of research misconduct. Any criticisms that raise the possibility of misconduct should not just be published but should be further investigated even if they are received a long time after publication.

Editorial policies relevant only to journals that publish research in humans or animals

6. Critically assess and require a high standard of ethical conduct of research

Especially in biomedical research but also in social sciences and humanities, ethical conduct of research is paramount in the protection of humans and animals. Ethical oversight, appropriate consent procedures, and adherence to relevant laws are required from authors. Editors need to be vigilant to concerns in this area.

6.1 Ethics approval and ethical conduct

Editors should generally require the approval of a study by an ethics committee (or institutional review board) and the assurance that it was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki for medical research in humans but, in addition, should be alert to areas of concern in the ethical conduct of research. This may mean that a paper is sent to peer reviewers with particular expertise in this area, to the journal’s ethics committee if there is one, or that editors require further reassurances or evidence from authors or their institutions.

Papers may be rejected on ethical grounds even if the research had ethics committee approval.

6.2 Consent (to take part in research)

If research is done in humans, editors should ensure that a statement on the consent procedure is included in the paper. In most cases, written informed consent is the required norm. If there is any concern about the consent procedure, if the research is done in vulnerable groups, or if there are doubts about the ethical conduct, editors should ask to see the consent form and enquire further from authors, exactly how consent was obtained.

6.3 Consent (for publication)

For all case reports, small case series, and images of people, editors should require the authors to have obtained explicit consent for publication (which is different from consent to take part in research). This consent should inform participants which journal the work will be published in, make it clear that, although all efforts will be made to remove unnecessary identifiers, complete anonymity is not possible, and ideally state that the person described has seen and agreed with the submitted paper.

The signed consent form should be kept with the patient file rather than sent to the journal (to maximize data protection and confidentiality, see paragraph 6.4). There may be exceptions where it is not possible to obtain consent, for example when the person has died. In such cases, careful consideration about possible harm is needed and out of courtesy attempts should be made to obtain assent from relatives. In very rare cases, an important public health message may justify publication without consent if it is not possible despite all efforts to obtain consent and the benefit of publication outweighs the possible harm.

6.4 Data protection and confidentiality

Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable (see paragraph 6.3), and having editorial policies that comply with guidelines on patient confidentiality.

6.5 Adherence to relevant laws and best practice guidelines for ethical conduct

Editors should require authors to adhere to relevant national and international laws and best practice guidelines where applicable, for example when undertaking animal research. Editors should encourage the registration of clinical trials.

7. Editorial Processes

7.1 Ensuring a fair and appropriate peer review process

One of the most important responsibilities of editors is organizing and using peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer-reviewed.

7.2 Decision whether to review

Editors may reject a paper without peer review when it is deemed unsuitable for the journal’s readers or is of poor quality. This decision should be made in a fair and unbiased way. The criteria used to make this decision should be made explicit. The decision not to send a paper for peer review should only be based on the academic content of the paper, and should not be influenced by the nature of the authors or the host institution.

7.3 Interaction with peer reviewers

Editors should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest. Editors should ensure that reviews are received in a timely manner.

Peer reviewers should be told what is expected of them and should be informed about any changes in editorial policies. In particular, peer reviewers should be asked to assess research and publication ethics issues (i.e., whether they think the research was done and reported ethically, or if they have any suspicions of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or redundant publication). Editors should have the policy to request a formal conflict of interest declaration from peer reviewers and should ask peer-reviewers to inform them about any such conflict of interest at the earliest opportunity so that they can make a decision on whether an unbiased review is possible. Certain conflicts of interest may disqualify a peer reviewer. Editors should stress confidentiality of the material to peer reviewers and should require peer reviewers to inform them when they ask a colleague for help with a review or if they mentor a more junior colleague in conducting peer review. Editors should ideally have a mechanism to monitor the quality and timeliness of peer review and to provide feedback to reviewers.

7.4 Reviewer misconduct

Editors must take reviewer misconduct seriously and pursue any allegation of breach of confidentiality, non-declaration of conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial), inappropriate use of confidential material, or delay of peer review for competitive advantage. Allegations of serious reviewer misconduct, such as plagiarism, should be taken to the institutional level.

7.5 Interaction with authors

Editors should make it clear to authors what the role of the peer reviewer is because this may vary from journal to journal. Some editors regard peer reviewers as advisors and may not necessarily follow (or even ask for) reviewers’ recommendations on acceptance or rejection. Correspondence from editors is usually with the corresponding author, who should guarantee to involve co-authors at all stages. Communicating with all authors at first submission and at the final acceptance stage can be helpful to ensure all authors are aware of the submission and have approved the publication. Normally, editors should pass on all peer reviewers’ comments in their entirety. However, in exceptional cases, it may be necessary to exclude parts of a review, if it, for example, contains libellous or offensive remarks. It is important, however, that such editorial discretion is not inappropriately used to suppress inconvenient comments.

There should always be good reasons, which are clearly communicated to authors if additional reviewers are sought at a late stage in the process.

The final editorial decision and reasons for this should be clearly communicated to authors and reviewers. If a paper is rejected, editors should ideally have an appeals process. Editors, however, are not obliged to overturn their decision.

8. Editorial decision-making

Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible, and is in accordance with the academic vision of the particular journal.

8.1 Editorial and journal processes

All editorial processes should be made clear in the information for authors. In particular, it should be stated what is expected of authors, which types of papers are published, and how papers are handled by the journal. All editors should be fully familiar with the journal policies, vision, and scope. The final responsibility for all decisions rests with the editor-in-chief.

Editorial conflicts of interest Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest, for example, if they work or have worked in the same institution and collaborated with the authors, if they own stock in a particular company, or if they have a personal relationship with the authors. Journals should have a defined process for handling such papers. Journals should also have a process in place to handle papers submitted by editors or editorial board members to ensure unbiased and independent handling of such papers. This process should be stated in the information for authors. Editorial conflicts of interests should be declared, ideally publicly.

*References:

Wager E & Kleinert S (2011) Responsible research publication: international standards for authors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. Chapter 50 in: Mayer T & Steneck N (eds) Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing, Singapore (pp 309-16). (ISBN 978-981-4340-97-7)

Kleinert S & Wager E (2011) Responsible research publication: international standards for editors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. Chapter 51 in: Mayer T & Steneck N (eds) Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing, Singapore (pp 317-28). (ISBN 978-981-4340-97-7)

Archiving Policy

In addition to DOI, the IJBES articles are also deposited at the Malaysian National Library (Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia) and UTM Library

Journal History

The International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability (IJBES) is the substitute of Journal Alam Bina (JAB) - ISSN 1551-1369. The JAB was published in 2003, and continues up until 2008. Thus JAB can be considered as the embryo of IJBES. The e-ISSN of the IJBES is 2289-8948.

To catch international authors, IJBES is promoted to be an international journal with international editorial board and maintains peer-review process. With expanded scope of the Journal, IJBES attempts to be the outlet of local and national authors in the built environment and sustainability field to publish their researches and projects while capturing international authors to share their knowledge.

About the Journal

Focus and Scope

Peer Review Process

Open Access Policy

Publication Ethics

Archiving Policy

Sponsors

Journal History

Make a Submission

scopus

Information