www.buildingsandcities.org/insights/news/scopus1.html
B&C is Now Indexed in Scopus
Independent measure gives top ranking to Buildings & Cities
B&C is ranked as a top quartile (Q1) journal in Scopus. B&C's Citescore is 4.0.
B&C's transdisciplinary nature is reflected in Q1 ranking in different categories:
- Engineering: Architecture
- Social Sciences: Urban Studies
- Social Sciences: Georgraphy, Planning and Development
Many aspects of modern society (especially research and research publications) are evaluated using metrics - part of an "audit culture". However, metrics should be used sparingly as they may give a limited overall picture. Indeed, there are many different criteria other than metrics for authors to choose for their decision of where publish. A richer, broader and more equitable approach is also advocated for research managers, deans and assessment panels by DORA - the Declaration of Research Assessment.
The reported results reflect the number of citations as independently calculated and assessed by Scopus.
In addition to a high number of citations within a specific field, the range of citations show that papers published in B&C are read and highly cited across different disciplinary categories (i.e. journals with a specific focus and readership) - a strong indicator of this journal's transdisciplinary approach and relevance.
The focus and scope of Buildings & Cities, the journal's values and principles, high standards of peer review and editing, the hard work of our editorial team, guest editors, reviewers and authors, together with the wide community of scholars, practitioners and readers all deserve credit for this milestone and achievement.
Many thanks to everyone who has participated in the life of this journal and contributed to this success!
Latest Peer-Reviewed Journal Content
Timing matters: life cycle embodied GHG emissions of circular building strategies
A Wöhler, L Rosado, H Abu Ghaida, H Wallbaum & A Hollberg
Scaling up retrofit: regional challenges and opportunities for MMC
H Dörr, P Späth & I Goñi
Design as communicative activity: implications for sustainability assessment software
T Säwén, A Sasic Kalagasidis & A Hollberg
Indoor temperature and office work performance in a temperate climate
T Kramer & S Schiavon
Moving homes and energy poverty: residents’ concerns, capabilities and responses
M Jalas, J Rinkinen, S Numminen & E Valkealahti
Reference study for biogenic carbon storage in the residential building stock
O Iliescu, I Talvitie, A Amiri & S Junnila
Building space heating and cooling in NDCs 4.0
T P Lützkendorf
Building component reuse as sociomaterial interaction: lessons from precast concrete
J Uusikartano, L Alkki & V Capitani
Validating national reuse indicators from regional demolition data: a Swedish example
F Ericsson, K Mjörnell & U Janson
Climate change risk and decision-making [editorial]
S Foxell & I Cooper
Technologies of reconstruction [editorial]
P Tombesi
Urban form metrics for building occupancy modelling: applications and impacts
D Reiter, M Jehling & R Hecht
Retrofit realism: affordable low-carbon policies for existing homes
N Eyre & R Khosla
Join Our Community
The most important part of any journal is our people – readers, authors, reviewers, editorial board members and editors. You are cordially invited to join our community by joining our mailing list. We send out occasional emails about the journal – calls for papers, special issues, events and more.
We will not share your email with third parties. Read more
Latest Commentaries
Practitioners’ Views of POE
Post-occupancy evaluation (POE) is widely valued but weakly embedded in practice. Ant Marsh, Kate van Someren, Lara Clarke and Tom Randall (Arup Building Performance and Commissioning Services) explain the findings from a survey and focus groups with UK construction industry practitioners. They identified fragmented responsibility, split commercial incentives and a persistent fear of “bad news”. Making POE routine requires a shift from producing reports to a focus on improving outcomes by owning and acting on learning.
Who is Responsible for Climate Change?
Ian Cooper (Eclipse Research) explores the questions of responsibility raised in the recent Buildings & Cities special issue ‘Climate Change Risk and Decision-Making’. Focusing here on carbon emissions and mitigation, global responses will require grounding in what can work locally. New responsibilities arise for the wide range of built environment decision-makers: clients, professionals and their institutions, central and local governments, product suppliers, financiers, insurers, etc. A framework is needed to manage the complexity of responsibilities especially for variety of actors, the time frames and spatial scales.