Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is a privilege. However, it is a time-consuming responsibility. Hence, RER’s Editorial Board, authors, and audiences appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedication. RER adheres to a single-blind peer-review process that is rapid, fair, and ensures a high quality of articles published. In so doing, RER needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turn around time of about 4 weeks. Maintaining RER as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts.



If RER’s Editor-in-Chief has invited you to review a manuscript, please consider the following:

  1. Reviewing manuscript critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their work
  2. Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary
  3. Providing all required information within established deadlines
  4. Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal
  5. Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review
  6. Reporting possible research misconducts
  7. Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reasons
  8. Treating the manuscript as a confidential document
  9. Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript
  10. Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow they identify the authors
  11. Not identifying themselves to authors
  12. Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer
  13. Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work
  14. Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge
  15. Writing review report in English only
  16. Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript 



  1. Novelty
  2. Originality
  3. Scientific reliability
  4. Valuable contribution to the science
  5. Adding new aspects to the existed field of study
  6. Ethical aspects
  7. Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines
  8. References provided to substantiate the content
  9. Grammar, punctuation and spelling
  10. Scientific misconduct 


Reviewer Name Specialty Affiliation
Seyedeh Samaneh Abdollahi Life-Cycle Prediction
Hamid Dehnavipour Faculty of Civil Engineering, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran
Pouyan Fakharian
Xing Fu Faculty of Infrastructure Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116023, China
Hooman Ghasemi
Maysam Jalilkhani
Bora Jang Life-Cycle Prediction Research Engineer, Sharma & Associates, Inc. Countryside, IL 60625
Masoomeh Mirrashid
Mehdi Mokhtari Resilience Metrics Institute of Industrial Science, The University of Tokyo, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, Japan
Ehsan Noroozinejad Farsangi Probabilistic Design Approaches Department of Earthquake Eng., Faculty of Civil and Surveying Eng., Graduate University of Advanced Technology
Baki Ozturk Resilience Metrics Hacettepe University
Danial Rezazadeh
Wengang Zhang Chongqing University, Chongqing, China