Published by the Lean Construction Institute since 2003, the Lean Construction Journal (LCJ) is an international refereed journal devoted to Lean Construction practice and research.
All papers will be rigorously reviewed by at least three people, at least one of whom is likely to be an industry practitioner. Reviewers will be asking themselves how the paper will support change in, and/or help to stimulate rethinking of, the construction process on- or off-site. The aim of the review process is to support the author(s) achieve this in an accessible manner. To support this, authors may choose to attach detailed statistical or other technical analyses of findings in an appendix that will be seen by the reviewers and available to readers if they want it.
In Lean Construction, owner, designers, general and specialty contractors, and suppliers work together to produce a value-adding, constructible, usable, and maintainable facility. The maximization of workflow, not point speed, through the minimization of performance variation and the elimination of systemic waste sources is a key cornerstone of Lean Construction. The primary objective of LCJ is to stimulate a systematic rethinking of the construction process both on and off-site by providing a forum for disseminating knowledge and exchanging ideas between industry and academia.
Manuscript authors (practitioners, consultants and academics), in any LCJ publication category, are minded to submit writings that are readily accessible to reflective practitioners and clients of the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) Industry and AEC students and faculty. Since the journal started, back in 2003 our acceptance rate is 48% (126 papers submitted, 59 accepted).
LCJ will publish high-quality:
Full Papers - manuscripts that report archival-worthy basic and/or applied research that provoke new thinking in Lean Construction. Papers are blind-reviewed by at least three peer reviewers. This category is most suited for academics seeking credit for promotion purposes.
Technical Notes - manuscripts (usually has fewer than 2500 words or word-equivalents) that report (1) novel/alternative theoretical construct; (2) innovative practical developments; (3) structured investigations into Lean Construction country/region-based, and/or industry-wide implementation opportunities/challenges; (4) preliminary/partial research findings. Notes are blind-reviewed by at least three peer reviewers. This category is most suited for academics seeking credit for promotion purposes.
Forum Essays - thought-provoking and stimulating opinion pieces on practices in the field, experiences with or historical chronicles of Lean Construction implementations, reflections on Lean Construction principles and tools. Essays may be founded in fact, conjecture, and/or speculations of the author(s). Forum Essays are blind-reviewed by two peer reviewers.
Case Studies - descriptions of the application of lean thinking to the construction process and the results obtained. We welcome reports of failure, particularly where the authors also record their learning, as well as success. Case studies are welcome from practitioners as well as academics - taken together they can form the basis for research by others. There is no requirement for case studies to be backed up by extensive references to theory and literature. All we ask is that case studies acknowledge their sources - books or people - and are easy to read. At a minimum, a case study will be reviewed by 2 practitioners and 1 academic.
Process Benchmarks - This is a document that summarizes experiences and knowledge gained from scholarly activities:
- At Lean Construction Institute affiliated university-based research labs;
- By practitioners and/or academics who are active in the International Group of Lean Construction.
This document captures the state of practice and theory to date on a particular topic (the current state of standard work), and serves as advice to industry that is grounded in research. The Process benchmark establishes a point of departure from where we can improve on standard work. This category is reviewed by the LCJ editors only. Updates to a published process benchmark are welcome.
Discussions, rejoinders and closures to previous contributions - formal and considered comments, rejoinders and/or questions about the technical content of a paper. Authors' responses/closures respond to arguments and clarify issues raised in discussions.
Book reviews are also welcome.
Themed Sections - from time to time we will invite papers around a particular theme - if you have an idea for a themed section please let us know here.
We welcome submissions from practitioners, consultants and academics and ask that they be readily accessible to reflective practitioners, owners and clients of the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) Industry, toAEC students and researchers. You will find instructions for authors here.
For many of our readers English is a second or third language and we want your paper to be readily understandable by them as well as by practitioners and those who are fluent in English. Before you submit a paper, please use an editor and/or proof-reader to ensure that your use of English - including content, style, clarity, organisation and grammar - is of the highest order and does justice to the ideas you are presenting.
As an on-line journal LCJ is able to publish submissions as soon as they are approved.
LCJ includes applications of lean thinking to:
- construction enterprise management;
- the construction process;
- BIM/Virtual Design & Construction;
- product development;
- construction procurement (relational contracting, alliancing, integrated project delivery);
- supply chain management;
- construction logistics;
- financial management;
- implementation and strategy;
- information technology;
- open buildings and tolerances;
- performance measurement;
- lean workstructuring;
- prefabrication and site installation;
- production planning and control;
- labor/management training;
- safety and health, quality;
- ergonomics - fitting the work to the worker;
- climate change and environment;
- challenges to current thinking (theory).
As lean theory takes a whole systems view, which emphasizes, among other things, optimization of the whole rather than the parts, we ask authors to ensure that they show how their ideas contribute to optimizing the end-to-end design, construction & use process.
Reinventing the idea of a journal
We want to use our unique position and the opportunities offered by the internet to reinvent what a journal is. We would appreciate your ideas, feedback and comments to enable us to do this. Please send us an email here.
LCJ Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
(based COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)
LCJ is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles. Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
Authors - Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors - Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers - Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.