Peer Review Process

PEER REVIEW PROCESS POLICY

1. Purpose and Scope

The UNESA Journal of Chemical Education (UJCEd) is committed to a fair, rigorous, confidential, and independent peer-review process that supports the scholarly quality and integrity of published research in chemistry education. Research manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo initial editorial assessment and, if eligible, external peer review before a final editorial decision is made.

2. Peer-Review Model

UJCEd adopts a double-blind peer-review model, in which author and reviewer identities are concealed from one another during the review process. Eligible research manuscripts are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise appropriate to the manuscript. The editor may appoint additional reviewers when necessary, including where assessments substantially differ. Authors are expected to remove identifying information from the manuscript file and follow the journal’s instructions for anonymous review.

3. Editorial Screening (Initial Check)

After submission through the journal’s official Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, the editor checks the manuscript for relevance to the journal’s focus and scope; basic scholarly quality and originality; adherence to manuscript preparation and submission guidelines; completeness of ethical declarations; and potential plagiarism or other research-integrity concerns. Manuscripts that are out of scope or do not meet the journal’s minimum requirements may be returned for correction or rejected without external peer review.

4. Reviewer Selection and Independence

The editor selects reviewers based on subject-matter and methodological expertise, relevant scholarly experience, availability, independence, and the absence of actual or perceived conflicts of interest. Reviewers should not evaluate work when personal, professional, financial, institutional, or collaborative relationships could compromise impartial judgment. Reviewer selection and invitations are managed by the editorial team; the final decision on reviewer assignment rests with the editor.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers are invited to assess the manuscript systematically, with particular attention to:

  • Relevance to chemistry education and the journal’s aims and scope.
  • Originality, significance, and contribution to knowledge or educational practice.
  • Strength and appropriateness of research design, instruments, methods, and analyses.
  • Validity, transparency, and sufficiency of data and evidence.
  • Logical interpretation of results, limitations, and conclusions.
  • Clarity of organization, academic writing, tables, figures, and references.
  • Compliance with applicable research and publication ethics.

6. Editorial Workflow

The peer-review workflow ordinarily comprises the following stages:

  1. Submission through OJS and preliminary editorial assessment.
  2. Assignment to independent peer reviewers after a successful initial check.
  3. Written reviewer reports and recommendations submitted to the editor.
  4. Editorial assessment and communication of a decision to the corresponding author.
  5. Submission of a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response where revision is required.
  6. Further editorial assessment or an additional round of review when needed.
  7. Final editorial decision, followed by copyediting, production, and publication for accepted manuscripts.

7. Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Reviewer recommendations may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, resubmission for review, or rejection, according to the options supported by the editorial workflow. Recommendations inform but do not determine the final outcome. The editor evaluates the reviewers’ reports, the authors’ responses, the manuscript’s scholarly merit, and editorial and ethical requirements before making the final decision. No manuscript is guaranteed acceptance solely because a revision has been submitted.

8. Revision and Reassessment

When revision is requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript within the deadline communicated by the editor and provide a clear point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed, including justified explanations where a suggestion is not adopted. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or examined by additional reviewers at the editor’s discretion.

9. Confidentiality and Reviewer Ethics

All submissions, peer-review reports, correspondence, data, and unpublished findings are confidential and must not be disclosed or used for personal research or advantage without authorization. Reviewers must provide objective, evidence-based, respectful, and constructive assessments, declare conflicts of interest promptly, and alert the editor to suspected ethical issues. Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscript material to third-party generative-AI services or other external systems without express editorial authorization and appropriate data protection safeguards.

10. Editorial Independence and Misconduct

Publication decisions are based on scientific merit, journal scope, and adherence to editorial and publication-ethics standards, rather than authors’ institutional standing or payment of publication fees. Suspected plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate citation practices, breaches of confidentiality, or manipulated peer review may lead to investigation and corrective action in accordance with journal policies. Editors handling their own work or manuscripts presenting conflicts of interest must recuse themselves and delegate responsibility to an independent editor.

11. Transparency and Review Duration

UJCEd aims to process manuscripts as promptly as possible while maintaining a substantive and fair review. Actual processing times depend on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the number and scope of revisions. Any review-time estimates published on the website should be based on verifiable editorial records and updated periodically; they are not guarantees of acceptance or publication.

12. Related Journal Information

The current list of peer reviewers, including their affiliations and scholarly identifiers where available, is published separately on the journal’s “Peer Reviewers” page. This policy should be read together with the Author Guidelines, Publication Ethics, Conflict of Interest, and AI Use Policy.