All scientific articles submitted to the editorial office of the scientific journal “Chemical Technology” that comply with the journal’s formatting requirements and meet the originality criteria based on plagiarism detection and AI-content screening systems are subject to mandatory double-blind peer review (reviewers do not know the authors of the manuscript, and authors do not know the reviewers).
Principles of Peer Review of Scientific Publications
Manuscripts are sent for review to scholars holding an academic degree of Candidate of Sciences, Doctor of Sciences, or Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and having a Hirsch index in international databases such as Web of Science or Scopus.
Peer review is conducted confidentially: the manuscript is sent to reviewers via the journal’s electronic platform without any information identifying the authors. Reviewers are required to provide an objective and well-reasoned assessment of the manuscript’s compliance with fundamental scientific criteria, as well as its quality and significance.
The reviewer is obliged to provide an objective evaluation of the manuscript. A manuscript received for review is treated as a confidential document, and the reviewer has no right to share the text for ознакомление or discussion with third parties.
The reviewer may not use information obtained during the peer-review process for personal benefit or for the benefit of third parties.
During the peer-review process, the reviewer must not make discriminatory or defamatory comments.
The editorial office ensures the confidentiality of the peer-review process.
The peer-review period is up to four weeks, but may be extended at the reviewer’s request.
Reviewers are required to submit their reviews within the established timeframe. If reviewing the manuscript and preparing the review within the specified period is not possible, the reviewer must notify the editorial office. A reviewer has the right to refuse to review a manuscript in the event of an obvious conflict of interest that may affect the perception or interpretation of the manuscript materials.
Based on the results of the manuscript review, the reviewer provides recommendations for further editorial decision-making (each recommendation must be justified):
- accept the manuscript - the article is recommended for publication;
- revision required - the article is recommended for publication after correction of the deficiencies identified by the reviewer;
- send the manuscript for additional review by other specialists;
- reject the manuscript - the article cannot be published in the journal and is rejected by the editorial office.
If an article is rejected following a double-blind peer review process, the author is notified
of the rejection via the journal’s online platform, along with the reviews.
If irreconcilable disagreements arise between the authors and the reviewers regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional peer review. In conflict situations, the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief at a meeting of the editorial board.
If reviewers or members of the editorial board have doubts regarding the authenticity or reliability of the research results, the author(s) must provide additional materials to confirm the results or facts presented in the manuscript.
Conflict of Interest
In the event of a conflict of interest involving members of the editorial board or reviewers arising from competitive relationships, collaboration, or personal connections with one of the authors, the manuscript is submitted to an independent expert for conflict resolution.
If a conflict of interest is identified after publication, the editorial board is obliged to ensure the publication of appropriate corrections.
Reviewers must not participate in the review and evaluation of manuscripts in the presence of a conflict of interest or personal interest.
If an ethical complaint is submitted regarding a manuscript under review or a published article, the Editor-in-Chief must take appropriate measures based on the practices of leading academic journals.
All reports of unethical behavior are reviewed without limitation periods. If the facts are confirmed, appropriate corrections, retractions, or apologies shall be published.
In cases of violations of publication ethics, the editorial office protects the reputation of authors and treats all such cases with due attention.
The editorial office reserves the right not to respond to allegations of plagiarism made by individuals who are not directly involved in the matter.
