The Journal of Construction recognises that different forms of scholarship require different approaches to reporting. Authors must therefore prepare their manuscript according to the structure provided for the selected article type.

The headings below constitute the Journal’s web-based manuscript template, and authors are required to reproduce the applicable headings in their Microsoft Word manuscript and use the explanatory guidance to determine what should be reported under each section. The explanatory text is provided as guidance and should not be copied into the manuscript. Regardless of article type, the manuscript should demonstrate a clear scholarly problem, engagement with appropriate literature, a transparent basis for the analysis or argument, and an identifiable contribution to knowledge and/or practice.

All manuscripts begin with:

Title

The title should accurately and concisely communicate the principal subject of the article. Avoid unnecessarily long titles, unexplained abbreviations and wording that overstates the findings.

Abstract

Maximum 250 words. The abstract should enable the reader to understand the purpose, approach, principal outcome and contribution of the article without reading the full manuscript. The emphasis should be adapted to the particular article type and should provide a concise, self-contained summary of the manuscript. To ensure clarity and consistency, authors should structure the abstract around the following elements:

Purpose / Problem
Briefly state the problem, issue or knowledge gap being addressed and the purpose or objective of the study.

Method / Approach
Summarise the research design, methodology, data source or analytical approach used. Include only the information necessary for the reader to understand how the study was conducted.

Results / Findings
State the principal findings or outcomes of the study. Avoid vague statements such as “the findings are discussed”.

Contribution / Implications
Explain the main contribution of the study and, where relevant, its implications for theory, research, policy or practice.

The abstract should communicate what was investigated, how it was investigated, what was found and why the findings matter. For non-empirical articles, the same logic should be adapted to the article type. For example:

• Review articles: purpose, review approach, principal synthesis or insight, contribution.
• Systematic reviews: review question, search/synthesis method, main evidence findings, implications.
• Conceptual or theoretical articles: conceptual problem, approach to theoretical development, proposed contribution, implications.
• Methodological or technical articles: problem, method or innovation developed, validation or performance outcome, contribution.
• Case study research: case problem, analytical approach, main findings, transferable insight or implication.

The abstract should not contain unnecessary background detail, tables, figures, undefined abbreviations or references unless a citation is essential. Furthermore, the abstract included in the manuscript must correspond with the abstract entered into the online submission system.

Keywords
Provide 4–6 keywords that support indexing and discoverability. Use meaningful disciplinary, methodological or contextual terms rather than merely repeating the title.

Original Research Article

Original Research Articles report new empirical, experimental, computational or other original research. The manuscript should normally follow an IMRaD/IMRaDC logic, adapted where necessary to suit the research design.

1. Introduction
Explain the problem being investigated and establish why it warrants scholarly attention.
The Introduction should:

• Establish the research context;
• Define the problem or issue being addressed;
• Explain its significance;
• Identify the gap, unresolved problem or need for the study; and
• Conclude with a clearly stated research aim, objective, question and/or hypothesis, as appropriate.

The Introduction should move logically from the broader problem to the specific purpose of the study. It should not become an extended literature review.

To demonstrate rigour: the need for the study must arise from evidence and scholarship rather than assertion. The research question or objective should follow logically from the problem identified.

2. Literature Review / Theoretical or Conceptual Background
Position the study within relevant existing knowledge and establish the scholarly basis from which the research proceeds. Authors should critically examine the literature rather than present a sequence of summaries of previous studies. The section should:

• Establish what is currently known;
• Identify important theories, concepts, findings and debates;
• Identify areas of agreement, disagreement or uncertainty;
• Demonstrate the specific knowledge gap addressed by the study; and
• Establish the theoretical or conceptual framework where one is used.

The literature selected should be relevant, credible and sufficiently current while also recognising important foundational scholarship.

To demonstrate rigour: the literature must support the logic of the study and clearly establish why the research question is necessary. Claims of a “research gap” should be demonstrated through the literature rather than merely stated.

3. Methodology
The Methodology should explain what was done, why it was appropriate and how the resulting evidence was analysed. Enough information must be provided for reviewers to assess the methodological integrity of the research and, where appropriate, for another researcher to reproduce or meaningfully understand the process.
Authors should address the following where relevant.

3.1 Research Design and Approach
Identify and justify the research design, for example quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, experimental, survey, longitudinal, cross-sectional, modelling or another appropriate design.
Where relevant, explain the philosophical or research paradigm informing the study.
Do not merely label the design. Explain why it was suitable for answering the research question.

3.2 Population, Context and Sampling
Define the population, research setting or unit of analysis.Explain:

• Who or what was studied;
• How participants, cases, organisations, projects or data were selected;
• The sampling strategy;
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria, where applicable; and
• The final sample size.

The sample should be justified in relation to the research design rather than described only numerically.

3.3 Data Collection
Explain how the data were obtained.
Identify the instruments, procedures, sources or technologies used and provide sufficient information about their development or selection.
Where questionnaires, interview schedules, measurement tools or established instruments were used, describe their origin and suitability.

3.4 Data Analysis
Explain how the data were analysed and why the selected analytical method was appropriate. Identify relevant software where its use is material to understanding the analysis. The analysis described in the methodology must correspond with the results subsequently reported.

3.5 Research Quality and Rigour
Authors should explain how research quality was established using criteria appropriate to the methodology.
For quantitative research, this may include:

• Validity;
• Reliability;
• Measurement quality;
• Statistical assumptions;
• Sample adequacy;
• Robustness or sensitivity testing; and
• Appropriate reporting of effect sizes, confidence intervals or other relevant statistics.

For qualitative research, this may include:

• Credibility;
• Dependability;
• Confirmability;
• Transferability;
• Triangulation;
• Reflexivity;
• Saturation or information adequacy; and
• Transparency of coding and interpretation.

For mixed-methods research, authors should additionally explain:

• Why both quantitative and qualitative approaches were required;
• The mixed-methods design;
• The sequence or priority of the components; and
• Where and how the different strands of evidence were integrated.

Merely conducting two different forms of data collection does not in itself constitute rigorous mixed-methods research.

3.6 Ethical Considerations
Where applicable, state:

• The approving Research Ethics Committee or institution;
• Ethical clearance number;
• How informed consent was addressed;
• How confidentiality, anonymity and data protection were managed; and
• Any relevant organisational or gatekeeper permission.

Supporting documentation must be uploaded separately as required by the Journal.

4. Results / Findings

Present the evidence generated by the analysis clearly, logically and objectively.
The Results or Findings should correspond directly with the research questions, objectives or hypotheses.
Use tables and figures where they improve understanding, but avoid reproducing the same information in the narrative, table and figure.
For quantitative studies, report appropriate statistical results rather than only stating whether findings were “significant”.
For qualitative studies, organise findings around clearly derived themes, categories, patterns or other analytical outcomes. Participant quotations may be used selectively as evidence but should support the analysis rather than replace it.

To demonstrate rigour: distinguish between the evidence generated by the study and the author’s subsequent interpretation of that evidence.

5. Discussion
The Discussion explains what the findings mean and why they matter. Authors should:

• Interpret the principal findings;
• Relate the findings directly to the research question;
• Compare them with relevant previous research;
• Explain areas of agreement or contradiction;
• Consider the findings in relation to the theoretical or conceptual basis of the study; and
• Explain their scholarly and practical significance.

The Discussion should not simply repeat the Results section.
Unexpected or contradictory findings should be examined rather than ignored.

To demonstrate rigour: interpretations must remain proportionate to the evidence. Authors should distinguish clearly between findings supported by the study and broader claims or speculation.

6. Conclusion and Implications
The Conclusion should provide a clear answer to the research problem or question and draw together the principal contribution of the study. It should explain:

• what has been learned;
• how the study contributes to existing knowledge;
• implications for practice, policy and/or theory where appropriate;
• relevant limitations; and
• meaningful directions for future research.

The Conclusion should not introduce substantial new evidence or literature.
Recommendations should arise directly from the findings rather than being presented as generic statements.

Review Article

Review Articles critically examine and integrate an established or emerging body of scholarship. They should produce an identifiable intellectual contribution rather than merely summarise previous publications.

1. Introduction and Review Purpose
Define the topic or problem being reviewed and explain why a review is needed.
The Introduction should establish:

• The scholarly or practical significance of the topic;
• The problem, debate or body of knowledge under examination;
• What existing reviews have already addressed, where relevant;
• The scope of the review; and
• The review objective or guiding question.

To demonstrate rigour: clearly explain what the review adds to existing knowledge.

2. Review Approach
Explain how the body of literature was assembled and analysed.
Although a critical or integrative review does not necessarily require the same protocol as a systematic review, authors should provide sufficient transparency for readers to understand the basis of the evidence considered.
Where appropriate, identify:

• Databases or principal sources consulted;
• Search concepts or terms;
• Period covered;
• Disciplinary or geographical boundaries;
• Criteria used to identify relevant literature; and
• The approach used to organise or analyse the literature.

To demonstrate rigour: avoid an unexplained or selectively chosen collection of sources that simply supports a predetermined argument.

3. Critical / Thematic Synthesis
Organise the literature around meaningful themes, concepts, theoretical positions, developments or debates.
The purpose is to synthesise, not to describe studies one after another. Authors should identify:

• Important patterns;
• Dominant perspectives;
• Areas of consensus;
• Contradictions;
• Methodological or theoretical weaknesses; and
• Changes or developments within the field.

4. Critical Discussion
Interpret what the accumulated literature means for the field.
The Discussion should explain:

• What the literature collectively demonstrates;
• What remains uncertain;
• Why contradictions may exist;
• Which assumptions or approaches require reconsideration; and
• What new understanding emerges from the review.

To demonstrate rigour: the conclusions must follow from the literature reviewed and should acknowledge significant contrary evidence.

5. Research Gaps and Future Directions
Identify meaningful gaps that arise from the synthesis.
Avoid generic statements such as “more research is required”.
Explain:

• What remains unknown;
• Why resolving it matters;
• What types of research or theoretical development are required; and
• How future studies could advance the field.

6. Conclusion
Provide the principal message arising from the review and clearly articulate its scholarly contribution.

Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis

Systematic Reviews and Evidence Syntheses must use transparent, reproducible and methodologically defensible procedures for identifying, selecting, evaluating and synthesising evidence. Where applicable, authors should follow PRISMA 2020 or another recognised reporting standard appropriate to the type of review. PRISMA 2020 provides both a reporting checklist and flow-diagram framework.

1. Introduction
Explain the problem, its significance and why a systematic synthesis of the available evidence is required.
Clearly state the review objective and question. Where appropriate, formulate the review question using a recognised framework suited to the field and question.

2. Review Protocol and Methodology
Describe the review methodology sufficiently clearly for another researcher to understand and, in principle, reproduce the process.

2.1 Protocol and Registration
State whether a review protocol was developed and whether it was prospectively registered or made publicly available. Where no registration mechanism is appropriate to the discipline, explain how the protocol was established before the review proceeded.

2.2 Information Sources
Identify all databases, registers, repositories, websites and other sources searched.
State the date on which the final search was conducted.

2.3 Search Strategy
Provide the principal search concepts and the complete search strategy for at least one major database or information source. The search should be sufficiently comprehensive to answer the review question.

2.4 Eligibility Criteria
Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria before reporting the results.
Explain any restrictions relating to:

• Publication date;
• Language;
• Geographical setting;
• Study design;
• Population;
• Intervention or phenomenon;
• Publication type; or
• Other relevant characteristics.

2.5 Screening and Study Selection
Explain how records were screened and selected and how disagreements between reviewers were resolved where more than one reviewer participated. The selection process should be presented using an appropriate flow diagram.

2.6 Quality Appraisal / Risk of Bias
Explain how the quality, methodological strength or risk of bias of included studies was assessed, where appropriate. Identify and justify the appraisal instrument or criteria used.

2.7 Data Extraction
Explain what information was extracted from each included study and how the extraction process was conducted.

2.8 Synthesis
Explain how the evidence was combined.
The synthesis may be quantitative, qualitative, thematic, narrative, configurative or another appropriate approach, but the analytical procedure must be transparent.

3. Results
Report the review process and findings separately from their broader interpretation.
Include:

• Search and screening results;
• Characteristics of included studies;
• Quality or risk-of-bias findings, where applicable; and
• Outcomes of the evidence synthesis.

6. Discussion
Interpret the body of evidence as a whole.
Consider:

• Strength and consistency of evidence;
• Contradictions;
• Methodological limitations;
• Applicability to the construction or built-environment context;
• Theoretical or practical implications; and
• Areas of continuing uncertainty.

7. Limitations
Discuss limitations of both:

• The available evidence; and
• The review process itself.

Authors should consider potential publication bias, database or language restrictions and other factors that may affect the conclusions.

8. Conclusion and Implications
State what can reasonably be concluded from the evidence and identify implications for research, policy and/or practice.
Do not make conclusions stronger than the evidence permits.

Conceptual and Theoretical Article

Conceptual and Theoretical Articles should develop, integrate, extend, challenge or reconceptualise existing ideas. A conceptual article must contain a method of intellectual development and a defensible scholarly argument; it should not simply be an extended literature review.

1. Introduction and Problem Framing
Identify the theoretical, conceptual or explanatory problem addressed by the article.
Explain:

• What is conceptually unclear, fragmented or inadequately explained;
• Why this matters;
• What existing theory or conceptualisation cannot adequately explain; and
• The purpose of the article.

The intended conceptual contribution should be evident from the outset.

2. Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations
Establish the bodies of theory, concepts and scholarship on which the argument is built.
Authors should critically engage with relevant perspectives rather than simply describe them.
Where multiple theoretical traditions are brought together, explain why their integration is justified.

3. Basis and Approach for Conceptual Development
Explain how the conceptual argument was developed. Depending on the article, this may involve:

• Theoretical integration;
• Conceptual synthesis;
• Typology development;
• Model development;
• Theory extension;
• Theory adaptation;
• Critical reinterpretation; or
• Examination of assumptions underlying existing theory.

Authors should explain how the relevant scholarly material was selected and how the reasoning progressed from existing knowledge to the proposed contribution.

To demonstrate rigour: conceptual development should be systematic and traceable. The new model or framework should not appear without explaining the intellectual process through which it was derived.

4. Proposed Concept, Framework, Model or Propositions
Present the new conceptual contribution clearly.
Define:

• The principal constructs or elements;
• Relationships between them;
• Boundaries or conditions of the proposed framework; and
• Propositions, where propositions form part of the contribution.

A figure may be particularly useful where the contribution involves a framework or model.
The figure should support the scholarly reasoning and must not replace the explanation.

5. Discussion
Explain how the proposed contribution:

• Differs from existing approaches;
• Resolves or reframes the original conceptual problem;
• Advances theoretical understanding;
• Changes how the phenomenon may be studied or interpreted; and
• Could inform future empirical research.

Consider competing explanations or limitations to the framework.

6. Implications
Explain the implications for:

• Theory development;
• Empirical research;
• Professional practice; and/or
• Policy, where relevant.

Where the framework requires future empirical validation, state this explicitly.

7. Conclusion
State the central conceptual contribution and its importance to the field without simply repeating the preceding sections.

Methodological and Technical Research Article

Methodological and Technical Research Articles introduce, develop, improve or validate a research method, measurement approach, model, analytical procedure, construction technology or other technical innovation.

1. Introduction and Problem Definition
Define the methodological or technical problem.
Explain:

• Why the existing approach is inadequate or capable of improvement;
• Who or what is affected by the limitation;
• Why resolving the problem matters; and
• The objective of the proposed contribution.

2. Existing Methods / Technical Context
Critically examine relevant existing approaches, technologies, methods or models.
Identify:

• Their strengths;
• Limitations;
• Assumptions;
• Performance characteristics; and
• The specific gap addressed by the proposed method or technology.

The novelty of the proposed approach should be clear.

3. Development of the Proposed Method, Model or Technology
Describe the proposed contribution in sufficient technical detail for it to be critically evaluated.
Depending on the nature of the study, report:

• Design principles;
• Development stages;
• Algorithms;
• Equations;
• Materials;
• System architecture;
• Datasets;
• Parameters;
• Assumptions;
• Technical specifications; or
• Implementation procedures.

Explain and justify important design decisions rather than simply describing the final product.

4. Testing and Validation
Explain how the method, model or technology was evaluated. This may include:

• Experimental testing;
• Benchmarking;
• Simulation;
• Validation against observed data;
• Comparison with established methods;
• Case application;
• Sensitivity analysis;
• Expert evaluation; or
• Another defensible validation approach.

Clearly specify the criteria used to determine performance. To demonstrate rigour: validation should provide independent evidence of performance and should not rely only on demonstrating that the method can operate.

5. Results
Report the outcomes of testing, implementation or validation objectively.
Where performance is compared with existing approaches, use appropriate and clearly defined metrics.

6. Discussion
Interpret what the results demonstrate about:

• Performance;
• Reliability;
• Efficiency;
• Accuracy;
• Robustness;
• Scalability;
• Applicability; or
• Other relevant attributes.

Compare the proposed approach with existing alternatives.
Discuss situations in which it may or may not be appropriate.

7. Limitations
Identify technical assumptions, boundary conditions, validation limitations and constraints affecting generalisability or implementation.

8. Conclusion and Implications
Explain the technical or methodological contribution and its implications for research and/or construction practice.
Where further development or independent validation is required, state this clearly.

Practice-Informed and Case Study Research

Practice-Informed and Case Study Research examines real-world construction projects, organisations, programmes, interventions, decisions or professional problems through systematic scholarly inquiry. A case study must do more than describe what happened. It should use the case to generate, test, refine or illuminate broader scholarly understanding.

1. Introduction and Problem Context
Define the problem addressed through the case and explain its broader significance.
State:

• Why the issue warrants investigation;
• Why the selected case is informative;
• The research objective or question; and
• The intended contribution beyond the individual case.

2. Literature / Conceptual Background
Position the case within relevant scholarship.
Identify the concepts, theories, evidence or professional debates through which the case will be examined.
The literature should provide an analytical lens rather than merely background information.

3. Case Selection and Context
Describe the case sufficiently for the reader to understand its setting.
Explain:

• What constitutes the case;
• Why it was selected;
• Relevant organisational, project, sectoral, geographical or temporal context; and
• Any boundaries applied to the case.

To demonstrate rigour: justify why this case, or these cases, can provide useful evidence regarding the research problem.

4. Methodology and Sources of Evidence
Explain how the case was investigated.
Identify:

• Sources of evidence;
• Participant selection, where applicable;
• Interviews, observations, documents, project records, datasets or other sources used;
• Data-collection procedures;
• Analytical methods; and
• Ethical and access arrangements.

Where multiple sources of evidence are used, explain how they were combined or triangulated.
For multiple-case research, explain how cases were selected and how cross-case comparison was undertaken.

5. Findings
Present the evidence emerging from the case analysis. Organise the findings around the research questions, themes, events, mechanisms or other analytical categories rather than merely providing a chronological description.

6. Analysis and Discussion
Interpret the findings through the literature, theory or analytical framework established earlier.
Explain:

• What the case reveals;
• Why observed outcomes occurred;
• How the findings compare with existing research;
• Alternative explanations; and
• What can reasonably be inferred beyond the immediate case.

To demonstrate rigour: maintain a clear chain between the evidence, analysis and conclusions. Do not generalise beyond what the case design can support.

7. Transferable Lessons and Implications
Identify the insights that may be relevant to other projects, organisations, contexts or professional situations.
Distinguish carefully between:

• Lessons specific to the case; and
• Insights that may have wider theoretical, policy or practical relevance.

8. Conclusion
State the principal contribution of the case study and explain how it advances knowledge or practice beyond simply documenting the case. Also, Identify relevant limitations and areas for future research.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that their research was conducted in accordance with all applicable ethical, legal and institutional requirements.

Ethical clearance is required where the nature of the research, applicable law or the requirements of the author’s institution require prior ethics review and approval. Authors should obtain the necessary approval before commencing the relevant research or data collection.

Research that will ordinarily require ethical review includes research involving:

• Human participants, including interviews, questionnaires, surveys, focus groups or observations;
• Employees, students, professionals, community members or other individuals recruited as research participants;
• Vulnerable persons or populations requiring additional ethical protection;
• The collection or use of personal, identifiable, confidential or sensitive information;
• Access to non-public employee, organisational, project or stakeholder information;
• Audio, photographic, video or other recordings through which individuals may be identified;
• Research involving potentially sensitive subjects or information that may create social, professional, legal, financial or reputational risk for participants;
• Interventions, experiments or other activities that may affect participants;
• Secondary data containing identifiable or non-public personal information, unless its use is demonstrably covered by an appropriate approval, exemption or lawful basis; and
• Health or health-related research involving human participants, which must comply with the applicable South African health-research ethics framework or that of the country of origin.

Other forms of research may also require ethical approval depending on institutional requirements, the research setting and the nature of the data being collected or used. Where ethical approval was required, authors must provide:

• The name of the approving Research Ethics Committee or institution;
• The ethical clearance or approval number;
• The date of approval, where available; and
• Confirmation of how informed consent was addressed, where applicable.

A copy of the ethical clearance certificate or formal ethics approval letter must be uploaded separately as part of the submission. Where a duly authorised institution or Research Ethics Committee has determined that formal ethical review is not required, authors should provide the relevant exemption, waiver or institutional determination where available.

Ethical approval should not be obtained retrospectively merely for the purpose of publication.

Ethical approval does not necessarily constitute permission to enter an organisation or collect data from a particular research setting. Where the research was undertaken within or through a company, institution, project, government body, community or other controlled environment, authors must provide the relevant gatekeeper, organisational, institutional, data-access or research-permission letter, where such permission was required. The documentation should demonstrate that the researcher was authorised to access the research setting or collect the data reported in the manuscript. Ethics and permission documents are retained as confidential editorial records and are not ordinarily supplied to peer reviewers.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that publication of their manuscript does not infringe the copyright or other intellectual-property rights of any third party. Where copyrighted material belonging to another person or organisation is reproduced or adapted—including figures, photographs, drawings, maps, tables, substantial extracts or other protected content—the authors must obtain written permission from the relevant rights holder where permission is required. Evidence of permission must be supplied to the Journal on request.
The original source must be appropriately acknowledged irrespective of whether formal copyright permission was required.
Authors retain responsibility for the accuracy of all copyright, permission and attribution information supplied with their manuscript.

The anonymised manuscript is the document sent to peer reviewers and must therefore contain no information that directly identifies the authors.

The manuscript must not include, as this is information desired on the author information page:

• Author Names;
• Institutional Affiliations;
• Email Addresses;
• Telephone Numbers;
• Orcid Identifiers;
• Acknowledgements;
• Author Contribution Statements; Or
• Other Directly Identifying Information.

The manuscript must be prepared and submitted only in Microsoft Word (.docx) format, and should follow the manuscript structure prescribed in the “Manuscript Layout” section for the selected article type. The manuscript should contain:

• Manuscript title;
• Abstract;
• Keywords;
• The required sections for the selected article type;
• Tables embedded in the appropriate places;
• Figures and artwork embedded in the appropriate places;
• Conclusion and implications; and
• References.

The anonymised manuscript must not exceed 15 A4 pages, including the reference list. The Journal uses double-anonymous peer review. This means that reviewers are not provided with the identities of the authors, and authors are not provided with the identities of reviewers.

The manuscript must be prepared in Microsoft Word (.docx) and should follow the structure prescribed for the selected article type in these Author Guidelines. Formatting should be consistent throughout the manuscript and should support a clear scholarly hierarchy. Authors should avoid decorative formatting, unnecessary colours, multiple font styles, text boxes, manually constructed numbering and excessive use of bullet points. The manuscript should read as a coherent scholarly document, with headings used to organise the argument rather than fragment it.

Level 1 – Main heading
Level 1 headings identify the principal sections of the manuscript.
Format: Bold, left aligned.
Example:

1. Introduction
2. Literature review
3. Methodology
4. Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusion

Level 2 – Subheading
Level 2 headings divide a main section into meaningful components.
Format: Bold, left aligned.
Example:

3.1 Research design
3.2 Population and sampling
3.3 Data collection
3.4 Data analysis

Level 3 – Sub-subheading
Level 3 headings should be used only where an additional level of organisation is necessary.
Format: Bold italic, left aligned.
Example:

3.2.1 Inclusion criteria
3.2.2 Sample size
3.2.3 Participant characteristics

Example of the heading hierarchy
A methodology section may therefore appear as follows:

3. Methodology
The methodology explains how the study was designed and conducted and why the selected approach was appropriate to the research question.

3.1 Research design
The study adopted a quantitative cross-sectional research design to examine the relationship between digital capability and project performance.

3.2 Population and sampling
The study population comprised construction professionals working on medium and large construction projects in South Africa.

3.2.1 Inclusion criteria
Participants were required to have a minimum of five years’ professional experience and current involvement in construction project delivery.
Authors should avoid creating a heading that is immediately followed by another heading without substantive text unless the structure of the manuscript genuinely requires it.

Paragraphs and General Presentation
The manuscript should be written primarily in complete scholarly paragraphs.
Bullet points may be used where they improve clarity, but they should not replace scholarly explanation and argument.
Authors should:

• Use continuous page numbering;
• Define abbreviations at first use;
• Use abbreviations consistently thereafter;
• Use SI units where applicable;
• Maintain consistent terminology throughout the manuscript;
• Avoid unnecessary manual line breaks and spacing;
• Avoid manually typing page numbers, table numbers or figure numbers where word provides an automated function; and
• Ensure that all tables, figures and references are cited within the text.

Tables
Tables should be used where they communicate information more clearly or efficiently than narrative text.
Tables must form part of the scholarly argument. They should not be inserted without being introduced, discussed or interpreted in the manuscript.

Creating Tables
Tables must be created using the Microsoft Word table function.
Use:
Insert → Table

Tables must remain fully editable.

Do not submit tables as:

• Screenshots
• Photographs;
• Flattened images; or
• Pasted pictures of spreadsheet data.

Table Number and Title
The table number and title must appear above the table.
Authors must use Microsoft Word’s Insert Caption functionality to create table numbers.

In Microsoft Word:
References → Insert Caption → Label: Table
Select the position:
Above selected item
Do not type table numbers manually.
Using the Word Caption function ensures that tables remain correctly numbered if a table is inserted, deleted or moved during revision.

Correct Table Format

Table 1
Demographic characteristics of respondents

Characteristic	Category	Frequency	Percentage
Professional role	Project manager	48	32.0
	Quantity surveyor	37	24.7
	Construction manager	65	43.3

Note. N = 150.

The correct sequence is therefore:
Table number → Table title → Table → Table note, where required

Table Titles
The title should identify clearly what the table contains.
Good example: Factors influencing digital technology adoption in construction firms
Too vague: Survey results

Referring to Tables in the Text
Every table must be cited in the manuscript before or immediately around its placement.
Example:
The professional composition of the sample is presented in Table 1.
Or:
As shown in Table 2, schedule performance received the highest mean rating.
Avoid:
The table below shows…
As can be seen in the above table…
Tables may move during typesetting. Authors should therefore always refer to the table by number.

Word Cross-References
Where possible, authors should use Microsoft Word’s Cross-reference functionality rather than manually typing table numbers in the text.
Use:
References → Cross-reference → Reference type: Table
This creates a link to the numbered table and reduces the risk of incorrect numbering if tables are subsequently moved.

Table Placement
Tables must be positioned as close as reasonably possible to the paragraph in which they are first discussed.
The preferred sequence is:
Respondents represented a range of built-environment professions, with construction managers comprising the largest group, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Professional profile of respondents
[Table]
The manuscript should then continue with the interpretation of the results.

Discussing Tables
The text should explain the important finding or pattern rather than repeat every value in the table.
Preferred:
Table 2 shows that schedule performance received the highest mean rating (M = 4.21), followed by cost control (M = 3.94).

Avoid:
Schedule performance was 4.21. Cost control was 3.94. Quality performance was 3.81. Communication was 3.76.
The detailed values belong in the table. The manuscript should interpret what those values mean.
Table Notes
Where abbreviations, statistical symbols, significance levels or other information require explanation, include a note directly below the table.
Example:
Note. SD = standard deviation; PM = project manager. p < .05.

Separate Table Files
Tables must be embedded in the anonymised manuscript for peer review.
They must also be uploaded separately in an editable format for production purposes.
The numbering of the separate file must correspond exactly with the numbering in the manuscript.
Example:
Table 1.docx
Table 2.docx

Figures and Artwork
Figures include:

• Graphs;
• Charts;
• Conceptual frameworks;
• Models;
• Diagrams;
• Photographs;
• Maps;
• Technical drawings;
• Process illustrations; and
• Other visual material.

Figures should be included only where they contribute meaningfully to the communication, interpretation or analysis of the research.

Figure Placement
The figure itself must be centred on the page.
The figure number and caption must appear below the figure.
Figures should be embedded in the manuscript as close as reasonably possible to the paragraph in which they are first discussed.

Correct Figure Arrangement
The proposed relationship between organisational readiness, digital capability and project performance is illustrated in Figure 1.
[CENTRED FIGURE]
Figure 1. Conceptual framework linking organisational readiness, digital capability and project performance
The correct sequence is therefore:
Discussion in text → Centred figure → Figure number and caption below
Creating Figure Captions in Microsoft Word
Authors must use Microsoft Word’s built-in Caption function.
Select the figure and use:
References → Insert Caption → Label: Figure
Select:
Below selected item
The Caption option must be available through the References section in Microsoft Word.
Do not manually type figure numbers.
Using the Caption function allows Word to recognise the figure as a numbered document element and enables automatic renumbering, cross-referencing and the generation of a List of Figures where required.

Figure Captions
The caption should clearly describe what the figure represents.
Good example: Figure 2. Relationship between workforce competence, digital capability and BIM adoption
Too vague: Figure 2. Framework

The caption should allow a reader to understand the basic purpose of the figure without having to search extensively through the manuscript.

Referring to Figures in the Text
Every figure must be referred to explicitly in the manuscript.
Example:
Figure 2 illustrates the proposed relationship between digital capability and implementation performance.
Or:
As illustrated in Figure 3, organisational readiness is proposed to mediate the relationship between technology adoption and project performance.

Avoid:
As shown in the figure below…
The above figure demonstrates…

Word Cross-References
Where possible, authors should use Word’s Cross-reference function:
References → Cross-reference → Reference type: Figure
This allows Word to update figure references automatically when numbering changes.

Explaining Figures
Figures should form part of the scholarly argument.
For example, a conceptual framework should not simply appear without explanation.

Preferred:
The literature identified three recurring dimensions of digital construction readiness: technological capability, organisational preparedness and workforce competence. These relationships are synthesised in the conceptual framework presented in Figure 3.
[Centred Figure]
Figure 3. Conceptual framework of digital construction readiness
The paragraphs following the figure should explain the constructs and relationships represented.

Figure and Artwork Quality
Figures embedded in the manuscript must be clear enough for editors and reviewers to evaluate.
In addition, each figure must be uploaded separately in publication-quality format.
The recommended minimum image resolution is:

• Colour photographs: 300 dpi;
• Greyscale photographs: 600 dpi;
• Combination artwork containing images together with labels or text: 600 dpi; and
• Line art or monochrome diagrams: 1200 dpi.

Preferred figure formats include:

• Tiff;
• Jpeg;
• Png;
• Svg; or
• Eps, where appropriate.

Text, labels, legends and axes contained within figures must remain legible at publication size.
Separate figure files should use the same numbering as the manuscript.
Example:
Figure 1.tiff
Figure 2.png
Figure 3.svg

Third-Party Tables, Figures and Artwork
Authors are responsible for ensuring that they hold the necessary rights to reproduce or adapt third-party material.
This includes:

• Photographs;
• Figures;
• Maps;
• Diagrams;
• Drawings;
• Tables;
• Illustrations; and
• Other copyrighted material.

Where permission is required, authors must obtain written permission from the relevant copyright holder before publication.
The source must be acknowledged irrespective of whether formal permission was required.

Example – Adapted Figure
Figure 4. Integrated project governance framework
Note. Adapted from Smith and Dlamini (2024).

Example – Reproduced Figure
Figure 5. Construction project lifecycle model
Note. Reproduced from Smith (2023) with permission.

Evidence of permission must be supplied to the Journal where requested.
Material that does not meet copyright, permission or production requirements may be returned to the Corresponding Author for correction or replacement.

Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements must not appear in the anonymised manuscript submitted for peer review, because they may reveal the identity of the authors, their institutions or research partners. During initial submission, acknowledgements must appear on the Author Information Page.

Acknowledgements may recognise individuals or organisations that made a meaningful contribution to the research but do not meet the requirements for authorship. Appropriate acknowledgements may include:

• Technical assistance;
• Research assistance;
• Administrative support;
• Access to research facilities;
• Organisational cooperation;
• Specialist advice; or
• Other contributions that do not constitute authorship.

Example – Research Assistance
The authors acknowledge the participating construction organisations and research assistants who supported the data-collection process.

Example – Institutional Support
The authors acknowledge the Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment for providing access to the research facilities used in this study.

Example – Professional Assistance
The authors thank the industry professionals who provided technical insight during the development of the research instrument.

Following acceptance, the Journal may require acknowledgements to be incorporated into the final manuscript, normally after the Conclusion and before the References. Acknowledgements should not be used to confer informal authorship on individuals who should properly have been listed as authors.

In-Text Citations
The Journal of Construction uses APA 7th edition for all in-text citations and references.
Authors must cite the source of:

• Ideas;
• Theories;
• Concepts;
• Definitions;
• Evidence;
• Data;
• Methods;
• Instruments;
• Models;
• Frameworks; and
• Other material derived from another source.

A citation should be placed close enough to the relevant statement for the reader to understand clearly what information is being attributed to the source.

One Author
Parenthetical citation
Digital transformation is increasingly influencing construction project delivery (Mokoena, 2024).
Narrative citation
Mokoena (2024) argues that digital transformation is reshaping construction project delivery.

Two Authors
Parenthetical citation
Organisational readiness may influence technology adoption (Mokoena & Smith, 2024).
Narrative citation
Mokoena and Smith (2024) found that organisational readiness influenced technology adoption.

Three or More Authors
For three or more authors, use the first author’s surname followed by et al. from the first citation.
Parenthetical citation
Skills shortages remain an important constraint on digital implementation (Dlamini et al., 2025).
Narrative citation
Dlamini et al. (2025) identified workforce capability as an important implementation constraint.

Multiple Sources
Where several publications support the same statement, they may be included within the same citation.
Example:
Digital construction technologies may improve coordination, information management and decision-making (Dlamini, 2023; Mokoena, 2024; Smith & Jones, 2022).
Authors should avoid adding unnecessarily long lists of citations merely to make a statement appear more authoritative.

Direct Quotations
Direct quotations should be used selectively.
APA 7 requires the author, year and page number or other appropriate locator.
Example:
Mokoena (2024) describes digital readiness as “an organisational capacity for coordinated technological adaptation” (p. 41).
Or:
“Organisational culture remains central to technological adoption” (Dlamini, 2023, p. 18).
Authors should generally synthesise scholarship in their own scholarly voice rather than rely extensively on direct quotations.

Secondary Citations
Authors should consult and cite the original source wherever reasonably possible.
Secondary citation should be used only where the original source cannot reasonably be accessed and should be formatted according to APA 7th edition.

Citations must have a legitimate scholarly purpose and must accurately support the claim to which they are attached.

a) Appropriate Example
Organisational readiness has been identified as an important determinant of successful BIM implementation (Dlamini et al., 2025; Mokoena & Smith, 2024).
The cited studies are directly relevant to the claim.

b) Poor Practice
Technology is important in construction (Dlamini, 2020; Jones, 2021; Mokoena, 2022; Smith, 2023; Williams, 2024).
A long list of references attached to a broad statement does not necessarily demonstrate critical engagement with scholarship.

Authors must avoid:

• citing sources they have not consulted;
• citing sources that do not support the statement being made;
• unnecessary or excessive self-citation;
• citation padding;
• inappropriate citation of retracted or unreliable work;
• excessive reliance on secondary citations;
• fabricated references;
• unverifiable references; and
• attempts to manipulate citation metrics.

Authors are responsible for verifying the existence, relevance and accuracy of every source cited.

It is mandatory for every paper submitted that every source cited in the manuscript must appear in the reference list.
Every source appearing in the reference list must be cited in the manuscript.
The reference list should be arranged alphabetically according to APA 7th edition.
DOIs should be included where available and should be presented as active DOI links.

Journal Article
Format:
Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Year). Title of article. Journal Title, volume(issue), page–page. https://doi.org/xxxxx
Example:
Mokoena, T. P., & Smith, R. J. (2024). Digital capability and project performance in construction organisations. Journal of Construction Management, 18(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/xxxxx

Book
Format:
Author, A. A. (Year). Title of book. Publisher.
Example:
Dlamini, P. S. (2023). Managing contemporary construction projects. Academic Press.
Chapter in an Edited Book
Example:
Mokoena, T. P. (2024). Digital transformation in construction. In R. Smith (Ed.), Contemporary built environment management (pp. 75–96). Academic Press.

Report
Example:
Council for the Built Environment. (2025). State of the built environment professions in South Africa. Council for the Built Environment. URL

Microsoft Word Reference Library

It is mandatory for all authors to create and maintain the manuscript’s citations and references using the Microsoft Word References functionality. The manuscript must contain a structured Word reference library and not only a manually typed bibliography. Failure to comply with this requirement will result in the return of the manuscript for correction by the author before the peer review process can commence.

Step 1 – Select the Referencing Style
In Microsoft Word:
References → Style → APA
Authors remain responsible for checking Word-generated citations against APA 7th edition.
Step 2 – Add Sources
Select:
References → Insert Citation → Add New Source
Enter the required bibliographic information.
For a journal article, this normally includes:

• Author;
• Year;
• Article title;
• Journal title;
• Volume;
• Issue;
• Page range; and
• Doi, where available.

Step 3 – Insert Citations
Place the cursor where the citation is required.
Select:
References → Insert Citation → Select Source
Word will insert the citation into the manuscript.

Step 4 – Manage the Reference Library
Select:
References → Manage Sources
Authors should ensure that all sources used in the manuscript are correctly recorded in the document’s source list.

Step 5 – Generate the Reference List
At the end of the manuscript select:
References → Bibliography
The generated reference list must then be checked carefully against APA 7th edition.
Example
An author enters the following source into Word:
Author: Mokoena, Thabo P.
Year: 2024
Article title: Digital capability and project performance
Journal: Journal of Construction Management
Volume: 18
Issue: 2
Pages: 115–129
Word can then generate the in-text citation:
(Mokoena, 2024)
and use the same source record to generate the reference-list entry.
Authors remain responsible for correcting incomplete or inaccurate metadata and ensuring that the final reference conforms to APA 7th edition.

Video Guide: Building a Reference Library in Microsoft Word
Authors unfamiliar with Microsoft Word’s citation-management tools should follow the instructional video below.

Regardless of article type, the Journal of Construction expects manuscripts to demonstrate:

• A clearly defined scholarly or professional problem;
• A logical connection between the problem, purpose, approach and conclusions;
• Critical engagement with credible and relevant scholarship;
• Transparency in how evidence, literature or concepts were selected and analysed;
• Methods and analytical procedures appropriate to the question being addressed;
• Conclusions that are supported by the evidence or argument presented;
• Acknowledgement of relevant limitations;
• Compliance with applicable ethical and legal requirements;
• Accurate and verifiable referencing; and
• A clearly articulated contribution to knowledge, policy and/or practice.

Rigour is demonstrated through transparency, coherence and methodological or analytical justification, not through the use of a particular methodology. Authors should therefore explain important research decisions rather than merely state that a method, framework or analytical procedure was used.

Before submitting the manuscript, authors should confirm that:

• Headings follow the prescribed hierarchy;
• Heading numbering is consistent;
• All tables have been created using editable word tables;
• Table numbers and titles appear above the table;
• Table numbering has been created using references → insert caption → table;
• Every table is cited and discussed in the manuscript;
• All figures are centred;
• Figure numbers and captions appear below the figure;
• Figure numbering has been created using references → insert caption → figure;
• Every figure is cited and discussed in the manuscript;
• Tables and figures are positioned close to their first discussion;
• Separate editable table files have been uploaded;
• Separate publication-quality figure files have been uploaded;
• Acknowledgements do not appear in the anonymised manuscript;
• All citations follow APA 7th edition;
• Every citation has a corresponding reference-list entry;
• Every reference-list entry is cited in the manuscript;
• The Microsoft word reference library has been retained in the document; and
• All references have been checked for accuracy and completeness.