Peer Review Policy
Reviews are an important part of the publication process that can improve the quality of articles published in Chemistry and Materials. During the initial review, the editor will read the submitted manuscripts and decide whether it is eligible for the peer review process. Only papers that meet our editorial standards will be submitted for peer review. The editor will reject any paper that does not meet the criteria without utilizing the peer review process.
Two reviewers will typically conduct the peer review. Reviewers are selected based on several factors, including their expertise, characteristics, and recommendations. Authors are welcome to recommend the inclusion or exclusion of specific reviewers. The journal editor will consider the recommendation, but makes the final decision regarding the selection of reviewers.
Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editor will make one of the following decisions:
- Accept the article with or without editorial revisions. Authors may be asked to revise their articles to address specific issues or to complete certain sections before the editor makes a final decision.
- Reject the article because it require additional work.
- Reject the article unequivocally. This usually occurs when the topic of the article is out of scope or lacks novelty. This decision may also be rendered when the article presents insignificant findings, inadequate conceptual progress, or major technical or interpretive issues.
Reviewers have various expertise and technical perspective and may have different recommendation for a specific paper. The editor will make the best decision based on the reviewers’ conflicting recommendation and will use the most informative report and recommendation related to the strength of the author’s arguments. The editor may also consider other information when making a final decision.
The purpose of the peer review process is to encourage authors to strengthen the content of their articles to ensure that they are worthy of publication. As much as possible, negative reviews will explain to authors the primary weaknesses of their articles so that rejected authors can understand the basis reason for the rejection and the action they should to improve their manuscript for publication with other journals.
During the peer review process, we ask the reviewer to respond promptly within 30 days. If a reviewer anticipates a delay, he or she should notify us so that we can inform the author and select alternatives if required.
We do not identify the author or the reviewers during the peer review process. To increase the transparency of the review process, reviewers may choose to voluntarily sign the comments they provide to the author if they are comportable of doing so.