www.buildingsandcities.org/about/metrics.html
Journal Metrics
Downloads and views
Combined full-text views and downloads of peer-reviewed content on https://journal-buildingscities.org/: 936,249 (2025)
Journal evaluation and impact
Scopus Citescore for 2025: 5.2 (ranked 18th in 203 journals - 91st percentile)
- #25/210 in Engineering: Architecture (88th percentile = Q1)
- #49/295 in Social Sciences: Urban Studies (83rd percentile = Q1)
- #187/876 in Social Sciences: Geography, Planning and Development (78th percentile = Q1)
- #72/258 in Engineering: Building and Construction (72nd percentile = Q2)
- #103/307 in Environmental Science (miscellaneous) (67th percentile = Q2)
- #147/432 in Environmental Science: Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law (66th percentile = Q2)
Scimago H-index: 26 (2025)
Scimago Journal Rank (SJR): 0.829 (2025) (Q1)
Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ): Seal of Approval
Finnish Publication Forum (JUFO): level 2
Content metrics
| Peer-reviewed content in the 2025 volume: | |
|---|---|
| Submissions received 1 | 207 |
| Reviews requested 2 | 1022 |
| Reviews received 3 | 359 |
| Total Rejections 4 | 173 |
| Acceptances 5 | 62 |
| Acceptance rate 6 | 35% |
| Peer-reviewed papers - Time to publication in 2025: | |
|---|---|
| Time from submission to first decision 7 | 99 days (3.3 months) |
| Time from submission to acceptance 8 | 159 days (5.3 months) |
Definitions
1 Number of new articles received by the journal ↩
2 Number of peer review invitation emails that were sent out ↩
3 Number of completed peer review reports received ↩
4 Total number of articles rejected (including desk rejects) ↩
5 Number of articles that received a 'Accept for publication' decision ↩
6 Number of acceptances, as a percentage, against the total number of final decisions ↩
7 'Mean' average from submission to first decision for all publications in the volume ↩
8 'Mean' average from submission to acceptance for all publications in the volume (includes revision & second review) ↩
Latest Commentaries
Disaster Reconstruction: Practitioner Insights Improve Outcomes
Regan Potangaroa (Auckland University of Technology - AUT), Kelvin Zuo (Massey University), Suzanne Wilkinson (AUT) explain why experience-led knowledge from the field, when triangulated with contemporaneous documentation, can constitute evidence for understanding post-disaster reconstruction systems. People working within reconstruction environments (engineers, builders, logisticians and community actors) provide crucial observations about how reconstruction systems function in practice, particularly supply chains, material flows, procurement and governance in post-disaster rebuilding. Integrating this knowledge can lead to better outcomes.
Preparedness for Recovery
Kristen MacAskill (University of Cambridge) and Lianne Dalziel (University of Canterbury) explain capabilities (and the associated capacity) are essential for preparedness. Capacity for both physical infrastructure and organisational / institutional response are necessary. This commentary focuses primarily on institutional capacity for disaster risk management, and the positive (if slow) developments in the value that is being placed on preparedness.