Reinforcement Review in Civil Engineering Studies and Management has a publishing frequency of 2 times a year, in the period of April and November all articles published through a peer review process by the Board of Editors and Reviewers, both internal and external editors and reviewers.

The Peer-Review Process in this journal begins with being related to the accuracy of fulfilling the requirements of the Author Guidelines or article writing guidelines and journal template reviews by the Board of Editors or the Editorial Board, both internally and externally. Editors who have a track record are in charge of carefully checking and ensuring that the articles being reviewed meet the Author Guidelines and Journal Templates. The next stage is the editor in charge of providing the assessment results by filling out the assessment results form or giving notes. The next process, the editorial team is then tasked with returning the article according to the results of the review from the Board of Editors when the article still does not meet the Author Guidelines or Journal Templates for revision by the author.

In the review process by the Editorial Team, a study was also carried out regarding similarity checking using Turnitin. Articles that have met the requirements of the review process from the editor team, then continue with the review process by the reviewer. The editor is in charge of sending articles electronically to reviewers, both internal and external.

The peer review process carried out by internal and external reviewers is in charge of reviewing and assessing the substance of the article, assisting authors through comments and inputs both related to the state of arts and other relevant substance components. The review process is carried out using a Double Blind Review. The ethical review process is carried out for the substance of the article, criticism and input are carried out objectively. The reviewer presents views and input clearly supported by clear arguments. Criticism of the author's personality is an unethical and inappropriate action carried out by the reviewer during the process of reviewing this journal.

The reviewer is tasked with in detail identifying the relevance of legal documents, concepts, theories and the results of previous relevant studies used by the author to review and analyze. The reviewer is also tasked with identifying relevant reading sources or study results that have not been quoted by the author.

The entire review process is carried out electronically. After the peer review process from the reviewers is complete, the Journal Editor is tasked with deciding which articles are worthy of publication, taking into account the results of the initial review from the editors team, the validity of the articles from the reviewers.