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/: 523,612 (2024)
Journal evaluation and impact
Scopus Citescore for 2024: 5.5 (ranked 18th in 203 journals)
- #18/203 in Engineering: Architecture (91st percentile = Q1)
- #46/288 in Social Sciences: Urban Studies (84th percentile = Q1)
- #153/841 in Social Sciences: Geography, Planning and Development (81st percentile = Q1)
- #56/239 in Engineering: Building and Construction (76th percentile = Q1)
- #70/271 in Environmental Science (miscellaneous) (74th percentile = Q2)
- #125/406 in Environmental Science: Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law (69th percentile = Q2)
Scimago H-index: 19 (2024)
Scimago Journal Rank (SJR): 0.742 (2024) (Q1)
Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ): Seal of Approval
Finnish Publication Forum (JUFO): level 2
Content metrics
| Peer-reviewed content in the 2024 volume: | |
|---|---|
| Submissions received 1 | 103 |
| Reviews requested 2 | 562 |
| Reviews received 3 | 203 |
| Total Rejections 4 | 51 |
| Acceptances 5 | 44 |
| Acceptance rate 6 | 46% |
| Peer-reviewed papers - Time to publication in 2024: | |
|---|---|
| Time from submission to first decision 7 | 59 days (2 months) |
| Time from submission to acceptance 8 | 140 days (4.6 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: Rebuilding Trust in Fragile States
Tania N. Haddad and Tracy Sakr explain why effective disaster response in fragile institutional environments depends not only on resources but also on governance capacity, coordination mechanisms and institutional trust. The 2020 Beirut Port explosion shows that fragmented governance authority, non-binding coordination arrangements and low public trust resulted in duplicated efforts, uneven aid distribution and limited strategic recovery planning. Institutional reforms can strengthen state capacity, formalise coordination mechanisms between government and civil society, and rebuild trust through transparency and accountability.
Reimagining Climate Action, Community Engagement and Professional Responsibility
Climate change poses a plethora of challenges for decision- and policy-making on multiple scales. Adopting a risk perspective can identify multiple kinds of risk that must be addressed if climate action is to be successful. John Robinson and Emily Smit (University of Toronto), Pamela Robinson (Toronto Metropolitan University) and Anne Gloger (Catalysts’ Circle) consider the decision-making risks having to do with whether climate mitigation and adaptation policies and programs are likely to achieve their goals.