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)
Web of Science / Journal Citation Reports Impact Factor for 2025: 3.7. Five year Impact Factor: 4.5
- #17/86 in Urban Studies (80th percentile = Q1)
- #27/104 in Construction and Building Technology (75th percentile)
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
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.