Review Process Policy

Peer Review Process

CHEMISTRY PROGRESS is committed to maintaining high standards of scientific quality, objectivity, transparency, and publication ethics through a rigorous peer-review process. All submitted manuscripts are evaluated based on their originality, scientific merit, methodological rigor, relevance to the journal's scope, and contribution to the advancement of chemistry and related fields.

1. Initial Editorial Screening and Plagiarism Check

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial team to determine whether it meets the journal's submission requirements and aligns with the aims and scope of CHEMISTRY PROGRESS.

The initial screening evaluates the manuscript's relevance, originality, completeness, adherence to the author guidelines, ethical compliance, and overall presentation. Manuscripts are also screened using Turnitin to identify textual similarities with previously published works, existing publications, and other available sources.

The Turnitin similarity report is carefully evaluated by the editorial team. The similarity index is not used as the sole criterion for determining plagiarism. Instead, the assessment considers the nature and extent of textual overlap, the sources identified, the adequacy of citations, and the context in which similar text appears. Properly cited material, standard scientific terminology, references, and conventional methodological descriptions are considered appropriately during the evaluation.

Manuscripts containing substantial unattributed overlap, inappropriate text reuse, suspected plagiarism, or other potential publication ethics violations may be returned to the authors for clarification or revision, or rejected depending on the severity of the findings. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements or fall outside its scope may be rejected without external peer review. Only manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening proceed to the peer-review stage.

2. Peer-Review Process

CHEMISTRY PROGRESS applies a [double-blind/single-blind] peer-review process, in which manuscripts are evaluated by independent experts with relevant academic qualifications and research expertise in the subject area. The journal aims to obtain assessments from at least two independent reviewers for each manuscript requiring external peer review, where feasible.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  • Originality and Novelty: The extent to which the manuscript presents new findings, insights, or meaningful advances in chemistry.

  • Scientific Significance: The relevance and potential contribution of the research to the field.

  • Methodological Rigor: The appropriateness, reliability, validity, and reproducibility of the research methods and experimental procedures.

  • Results and Interpretation: The accuracy of data presentation and the extent to which the conclusions are supported by the results.

  • Literature and References: The adequacy, relevance, and accuracy of citations and engagement with existing research.

  • Clarity and Organization: The quality of scientific writing, manuscript structure, figures, tables, and overall presentation.

  • Research Ethics: Compliance with applicable ethical standards, responsible research practices, and publication integrity.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, evidence-based, and constructive comments to assist the editor in making an informed decision and to help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts.

3. Editorial Decision

Following the evaluation of reviewers' reports and consideration of the manuscript's overall quality, the editor makes an editorial decision. The possible decisions are:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without further substantive revision.

  • Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited corrections or clarifications before a final decision can be made.

  • Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial improvements, additional analysis, or further clarification before it can be reconsidered.

  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific, ethical, or editorial standards, or is unsuitable for publication within the journal's scope.

A recommendation for revision does not guarantee acceptance. The final decision rests with the editor and is based on the manuscript's scientific quality, reviewers' recommendations, the authors' responses, and the journal's editorial policies.

4. Revision and Resubmission

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts must submit the revised version within the deadline specified by the editorial office. A detailed point-by-point response to reviewers' comments must accompany the revised manuscript, explaining how each comment has been addressed or providing a reasoned justification when a suggestion has not been adopted.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or reassessed by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions. Additional rounds of revision may be requested when necessary to ensure that the manuscript meets the journal's scientific and editorial standards.

The editorial team may conduct an additional similarity check using Turnitin when necessary, particularly if concerns regarding originality or text reuse arise during revision. Any identified concerns will be evaluated in context and handled in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities and Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and related materials as confidential documents. They must not disclose, reproduce, or use unpublished information obtained during the review process for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments when their impartiality may be compromised. Reviews must be conducted objectively, respectfully, and within the agreed timeframe.

Reviewers must also inform the editor of any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, data falsification, ethical concerns, or other potential forms of research misconduct identified during the review process.

6. Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, originality, relevance, methodological quality, and compliance with publication ethics. Decisions must not be influenced by authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, personal relationships, or commercial interests.

Editors who have conflicts of interest involving a submitted manuscript must disclose those conflicts and withdraw from handling the manuscript. An independent editor will be assigned when necessary to ensure a fair and impartial evaluation.

The interpretation of Turnitin similarity reports and decisions concerning potential plagiarism are handled independently and objectively by the editorial team in accordance with the journal's ethical standards.

7. Review Timeline

CHEMISTRY PROGRESS aims to conduct the peer-review process efficiently while maintaining the quality and rigor of scientific assessment. The duration of the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need for revisions, and the time required for authors to respond.

Authors may monitor the progress of their submissions through the journal's online submission system or contact the editorial office for relevant updates.

8. Final Acceptance and Publication

A manuscript is accepted for publication only after the editor determines that it satisfies the journal's scientific, technical, and ethical requirements. Acceptance is subject to satisfactory peer review, resolution of editorial concerns, and compliance with the journal's publication policies.

Accepted manuscripts may undergo copyediting, proofreading, layout preparation, and other production procedures before publication. Authors may be asked to review the final proofs to verify the accuracy of the text, figures, tables, author information, and other publication details. Corrections at this stage should be limited to necessary amendments and must not introduce unsupported changes to the research findings.

9. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a factual error, a significant misunderstanding of the manuscript, or an identifiable procedural irregularity may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office.

Appeals must include specific explanations and supporting evidence. Where feasible, they will be evaluated by the editor-in-chief or an independent editor who was not directly involved in the original decision. Following evaluation, the journal may uphold the original decision, reconsider the manuscript, or take other appropriate action based on the findings.

Complaints concerning the peer-review process, editorial conduct, or the handling of potential publication ethics violations will be addressed fairly and confidentially in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.

CHEMISTRY PROGRESS is committed to ensuring that its peer-review process is fair, independent, transparent, and consistent with recognized standards of scholarly publishing. Through rigorous editorial screening, Turnitin-assisted similarity checking, independent expert review, and responsible editorial decision-making, the journal seeks to uphold the originality, reliability, and integrity of published scientific research.