Peer Review Process

Editorial Screening

All manuscripts are submitted through the journal's Online Journal Systems (OJS) platform. The editorial office screens submissions for journal scope, completeness, ethical compliance, plagiarism concerns, reporting quality, and adherence to the author guidelines. Manuscripts that are clearly unsuitable may be rejected without external peer review; this is an editorial screening decision, not a completed peer review.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Research manuscripts selected for external evaluation undergo double-blind peer review, in which authors' identities are concealed from reviewers and reviewers' identities are concealed from authors, insofar as practical. The journal normally seeks evaluations from at least two suitably qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the submitted study. Reviewers are chosen on the basis of subject competence, impartiality, availability, and the absence of conflicts of interest.

Authors must remove names, acknowledgments, and identifying metadata from the blinded manuscript, while providing author details separately in OJS. Complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed for preprints, distinctive research, or publicly accessible data; all participants must nevertheless preserve confidential information received through the review process.

Assessment Criteria

Reviewers assess originality, relevance, literature positioning, experimental or computational design, chemical characterization and validation, statistical or data interpretation, research ethics, transparency, reproducibility, and the strength of the conclusions. Constructive, evidence-based comments are required; personal criticism is not permitted.

Editorial Decision and Revision

After considering reviewers' assessments and editorial evaluation, the handling editor may recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Authors must provide a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to each substantive comment. Revised submissions may be returned to the original reviewers or to additional independent experts.

The Editor-in-Chief, or an appropriately delegated editor without a conflict of interest, makes the final editorial decision. Reviewer recommendations inform, but do not replace, that decision. Acceptance is never guaranteed and is not affected by payment of any publication charge.

Reviewer Independence and Confidentiality

Editors and reviewers must declare relevant financial, institutional, personal, or professional conflicts of interest and decline assignments where impartiality could be compromised. Unpublished manuscripts and related datasets must not be shared with unauthorized third parties or uploaded to external generative-AI services without appropriate authorization and confidentiality safeguards.

Special Cases

Editorials or non-research notices, if published, may follow an editor-led assessment rather than conventional external peer review; any exception must be identified clearly. Conference-originated papers, invited papers, and contributions by editorial board members are not exempt from appropriate editorial screening and peer review. An editor-author's submission must be managed by an independent, non-conflicted editor.

The journal records submission, revision, acceptance, and publication dates accurately. Editors should notify authors of material delays and provide reasonable opportunities to inquire about or withdraw manuscripts.