--- name: cement-and-concrete-research description: Use when targeting Cement and Concrete Research or deciding whether a cementitious-materials manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's materials-science fit, the mechanism-plus-characterization bar, the distinction from mix-design optimization, characterization rigor, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. --- # Cement and Concrete Research (cement-and-concrete-research) ## Journal positioning Cement and Concrete Research is the leading archival journal for the **science of cementitious materials**: cement hydration and chemistry, microstructure development, durability and degradation mechanisms, and the mechanical behavior of concrete and cement-based materials. Its center of gravity is mechanistic understanding backed by rigorous characterization — why a phase assemblage forms, how microstructure evolves, and how that governs transport, durability, or strength. The journal rewards papers that establish a materials-science mechanism, not papers that merely report that a mix or admixture changed a performance number. A mix-design or proportioning optimization with no mechanism, no characterization, and no fundamental insight is a poor fit. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current official author guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live Cement and Concrete Research Guide for Authors. ## When to trigger - The author names Cement and Concrete Research for a cement-chemistry, microstructure, durability, or concrete-mechanics manuscript and wants a fit/framing check. - A paper must be re-framed from "this mix performed better" into a hydration / microstructure / degradation mechanism story. - The author is deciding between this journal and an applied construction-materials or structures venue, or between mechanism and proportioning emphasis. - The author needs the journal's characterization-rigor bar and desk-reject heuristics for cementitious-materials work. ## Scope & topic fit - Cement hydration and chemistry: reaction kinetics, phase assemblage, thermodynamics, and the chemistry of supplementary cementitious materials and alternative binders. - Microstructure development: pore structure, C-S-H and hydrate morphology, interfacial transition zone, and structure–property links. - Durability and degradation mechanisms: chloride/sulfate attack, carbonation, alkali-silica reaction, leaching, freeze–thaw, and transport processes — mechanistically resolved. - Mechanical behavior of concrete and cement-based materials when tied to microstructure or chemistry, including time-dependent behavior (creep, shrinkage). - Low-carbon and alternative binders (calcined clays, geopolymers, alkali-activated systems) where the advance is mechanistic understanding, not just a recipe. - Characterization and modeling methods for cementitious systems when validated and used to resolve a mechanism, not as a stand-alone technique demonstration. ## Method & evidence bar - The central claim is a **mechanism** in chemistry, microstructure, or degradation — supported by appropriate, quantitative characterization, not a performance table or representative images alone. - Characterization must be rigorous and fit-for-purpose: XRD (often quantitative), TGA, calorimetry, NMR, SEM/EDS, MIP, and spectroscopy with proper sample preparation, controls, and peak/phase assignments. - Quantitative claims (degree of hydration, phase fractions, transport coefficients) require reported methods, replication, and uncertainty, not single measurements. - Property and durability improvements must be explained mechanistically and benchmarked against the correct reference binder/mix, not a strawman. - Modeling (thermodynamic, microstructural, transport) must be validated against experiment or make tested predictions; a model with no experimental anchor is usually insufficient. - Reproducibility: report binder composition, w/b ratio, curing, mix and sample preparation, and test protocols in enough detail to reproduce the microstructure and the measurement. ## Structure & house style - Standard research-article structure (introduction, materials/methods, results, discussion); Cement and Concrete Research publishes full-length archival articles — route short or purely applied results elsewhere and re-check current article types on the live guide. - The introduction motivates the cement-science gap (mechanism), not the construction application; the discussion is where the chemistry/microstructure– property argument is made explicit. - Figures are load-bearing: diffractograms and thermograms with assignments, micrographs with scale bars and quantification, and property plots with error bars and the proposed mechanism schematic. - Supplementary material carries extended characterization, raw spectra, and full mix/curing details; main-text figures must support the central mechanism alone. ## Official-submission checklist - Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the Elsevier anchors, then cite the current Cement and Concrete Research Guide for Authors page you checked. - Search the live site for "Cement and Concrete Research guide for authors" and follow the current Elsevier/Editorial Manager version. - Re-check article types, length/figure expectations, and any reporting standards for materials and testing protocols. - Confirm data-availability and raw-data policy (e.g., diffraction, calorimetry, microscopy data) and any required reporting of mix proportions and curing. - Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution (CRediT), and AI-use disclosure requirements. - If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win. ## Pre-submission self-check - [ ] The contribution is a hydration/microstructure/durability mechanism, not a mix that simply performed better. - [ ] Characterization is appropriate and quantitative (phase fractions, hydration degree, transport) with controls and assignments. - [ ] Quantitative claims are replicated with reported uncertainty, not single measurements. - [ ] Performance/durability changes are benchmarked against the correct reference binder/mix and explained mechanistically. - [ ] Any thermodynamic/microstructural/transport model is validated against experiment or makes a tested prediction. - [ ] Binder composition, w/b, curing, sample prep, and test protocols are reported in reproducible detail. ## Common desk-reject triggers - A mix-design or proportioning optimization with a performance table but no mechanism or characterization. - Durability/strength claims by representative images only, with no quantification, controls, or sampling. - Modeling-only studies with no experimental validation or testable prediction. - Admixture/additive "it worked better" papers with no chemistry or microstructure explanation. - Application/structures-engineering papers where the cement-science mechanism is incidental. - Inadequate reporting of mix, curing, and sample preparation, preventing reproducibility. ## Re-routing decision - Construction/structural-engineering application over materials science → an applied construction-materials or structures journal. - Comprehensive critical review of cementitious materials → `progress-in-materials-science`. - Broader structural-materials mechanism beyond cement → `acta-materialia`. - Fiber-reinforced or polymer-composite emphasis → `composites-part-b-engineering`. - Highest-impact conceptual materials advance → `nature-materials`. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Cement and Concrete Research [Topic tags] <2–3 closest cementitious-materials subtopics> [Mechanism] [Method/evidence] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check]
[Re-route suggestion] ```