"Eclética Química" had the subtitle "Journal" added to the original name in mid-2017, starting to publish only in English. To keep the ISSN of the online version (obtained in 2004), it returned to the original name "Eclética Química" on January 1^st, 2023., ISSN online: 1678-4618 and ISSN print: 0100-4670.

Editorial policy (updated on December 29^th, 2023)

 

Focus and Scope

Eclética Química (Eclét. Quím.) is a peer-reviewed and continuous publication maintained by the Institute of Chemistry of Sao Paulo State University (IQ- UNESP). It publishes original research articles, reviews, and short reviews in all areas of Chemistry, in Education in Chemistry for different education levels, and Technical Notes of chemistry interest.

Eclética Química's editorial policy is based on the responsibility of providing quality scientific communication in the field of Chemistry. Thus, Eclét. Quím. requires its editorial board, reviewers, and authors to comply with ethical precepts and integrity and is committed to Open Science, strongly supporting, and encouraging its practice in publishing research results. Eclética Química is committed to following the trends of scientific publications.

Types of papers

            a. Original articles
            b. Reviews
            c. Short reviews
            d. Communications
            e. Technical notes
            f. Articles in education in chemistry and chemistry-related areas
            g. Letters
            h. Thematic sections dedicated to specific subjects inside the journal's scope, and articles from Symposia and Congresses.

Manuscripts submitted for publication as full articles and communications must contain original and unpublished results and should not have been submitted either partially or whole elsewhere. Manuscripts originating from scientific initiation, course completion monographs, Dissertations or PhD Thesis already deposited in Universities' repositories are accepted without considering it a violation of the journal's rules. Eclética Química also accepts pre-prints, since indicate the corresponding DOI and repository.

 

a. Original articles

The manuscript must be organized into sections as follows:

1. Introduction
2. Experimental
3. Results and Discussion
4. Conclusions
   References

Section titles must be written in bold and sequentially numbered; only the first letter should be in uppercase letter. Subsections, numbered as exemplified, should be written in bold and italic letters; sub subsections numbered as exemplified, should be written in normal and italic letters; only the first letter should be in the uppercase letter.

Example:

            1. Introduction
            1.1. History

            2. Experimental
            2.1. Surface characterization
            2.1.1. Morphological analysis

b. Reviews

Review articles should be original and present state-of-the-art overviews in a coherent and concise form covering the most relevant aspects of the topic that is being revised and indicating the likely future directions of the field. The addition of an Outline and the criteria used to make the bibliography review are highly recommended. Therefore, before beginning the preparation of a Review manuscript, send a letter (one-page maximum) to the Editor with the subject of interest and the main topics that would be covered in the Review manuscript. The Editor will communicate his decision in two weeks. Receiving this type of manuscript does not imply acceptance to be published in Eclét. Quím. It will be peer-reviewed.

c. Short reviews

Short reviews should present an overview of the state-of-the-art in a specific topic within the scope of the journal and be limited to 5,000 words. Consider a table or image corresponding to 100 words. Before beginning the preparation of a Short Review manuscript, send a letter (one page maximum) to the Editor with the subject of interest and the main topics that would be covered in the Short Review manuscript.

d. Communications

Communications should cover relevant scientific results and are limited to 1,500 words or three pages of the journal, not including the title, authors’ names, figures, tables, and references. However, communications suggesting fragmentation of complete contributions are strongly discouraged by Editors.

e. Technical notes

Descriptions of methods, techniques, equipment, or accessories developed in the authors’ laboratory, if they present chemical content of interest are taken into consideration and their submission is stimulated by Eclética Química. They should follow the usual form of presentation, according to the peculiarities of each work. They should have a maximum of 25 pages, including figures, tables, diagrams, etc.

f. Articles in education in chemistry and chemistry-correlated areas

Research manuscripts related to teaching in Chemistry and innovative experiences for different education levels, mainly in undergraduate and graduate education are welcome. They should have a maximum of 25 pages, including figures, tables, diagrams, and other elements.

g. Letters

This section publishes obituaries of important scientists in chemistry or related areas, letters for the Editor or comments about published articles. Letters must be uploaded to the system in the Letters section. A paragraph informing the main reason for sending the letter is recommended. The corresponding author should provide the institution and ORCID of all authors, a Phone number, and an email. (This information should be uploaded as a supplementary file or added to the discussion topics in the OJS system).
Letters are published only by the Editor-in-Chief decision.

h. Thematic sections dedicated to specific subjects inside the journal's scope, and articles from Symposia and Congresses

Thematic sections with complete articles dedicated to Symposia and Congresses, and specific themes in chemistry and correlated areas can be published by Eclét. Quím. under the condition that a previous agreement with the Editor-in-Chief is established. Authors can submit manuscripts to the open Thematic Section and the Editor-in-Chief decides on the suitability of the manuscript to the theme of the respective Thematic Section. The authors must follow all the journal guidelines.

 

GENERAL INFORMATION

Manuscripts submitted for publication as full articles and communications must contain original and unpublished results and should not have been submitted elsewhere either partially or whole. Manuscript originating from scientific initiation, course completion monographs, Dissertations or PhD Thesis already deposited in Universities' repositories is accepted without considering it a violation of the journal's rules. Eclética Química accepts manuscripts already published in the preprint (SciELO Preprints, EmeRI, ChemRxiv, …) since considered reliable by the editorial committee, the corresponding preprint DOI and the name of the repository should be informed upon submission.

Research involving human beings and animals must present an approval opinion from an institutional ethics committee upon submission.

All articles published in Eclética Química receive the Digital Object Identification (DOI).

Eclética Química has no article submission nor processing charges. All articles have open access for readers.

Eclética Química is an open-access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is under the BOAI (Budapest Open Access Initiative) definition of open access.

The name of the Associated or Section Editor appears on the first page of the published article. The ROR (Research Organization Registry) of the University appears in the affiliation.

The editor-in-chief should apply projects to financial agencies and the university in response to specific notices to raise funds for Eclética Química.

The history of Eclét. Quím. is updated by the Editor-in-Chief.

 

LICENSE CREATIVE COMMONS

Eclética Química adopts the Creative Commons License CC BY 4.0. This means that authors retain the article copyright, and the journal retains the priority to the first publication, being permitted the distribution, remixing, adaptation, and creation if due credit is given to the authors and the journal.

 

 

PUBLICATION ETHICS POLICY

The journal adheres to all recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) regarding plagiarism, multiple publications, conflict of interest and any other misconduct. Detail on Ethical conduct is in the Guide for Authors.

Corrections and retractions

No additions or changes of authorship are permitted after accepting the manuscript.

After publishing a manuscript, mistakes, or errors, independent of their nature or origin, which do not constitute misconduct, are corrected using an erratum. The Eclética Química publishes errata, corrections, or retractions as soon as possible.

Any additions or modifications to the accepted text should only be made before the manuscript is published and only if approved by the Associated Editor and Editor-in-Chief of the journal.

After the manuscript has been accepted, the Editor will only consider additions and changes to the text in exceptional circumstances and the publication will be suspended until the changes are processed.

The published article in which the misconduct is identified remains indexed in the Eclética Química database as retracted. It cannot be unpublished.

Retracting articles and issuing an expression of concern

(COPE’s retraction guidelines, Comment, vol. 374 (2009) 1876-1877).

Institutions, publishers, editors, authors, reviewers, and society must be committed to ensuring good practices in research, publications, and science in general and to transparency in all actions related to the production, dissemination, and use of knowledge. This presupposes the investigation of any misconduct, the immediate correction of honest errors and a deeper investigation by legally constituted committees to guarantee the correct decision with serenity and respect for those involved and ethical precepts.

The decision must be disclosed calmly, transparently, and clearly, explaining the reasons for such a decision and the consequences.

Retracting publications

If it is recognized that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement, or distorted narrative has been published, it must promptly be corrected with due prominence. If, after proper investigation, an item is revealed to be fraudulent, the publication must be retracted.

An article can be retracted in one or more of the following situations:

• When it has clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either because of a major error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error) or because of fabrication (e.g., of data) or falsification (e.g., image manipulation).
• When the article constitutes plagiarism.
• The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication).
• When it contains material or data without authorization for use.
• Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (e.g., libel, privacy).
• With reports of unethical research.
• It has been published solely based on a compromised or manipulated peer review process.
• The authors did not disclose a conflict of interest that according to the Editor-in-Chief's viewpoint would have unduly affected the work interpretation or infringed the journal and peer review rules.

A publication will be retracted after an investigation by the Eclética Química Committee with knowledge/participation of the Editorial Board of Scientific Journals (EBSJ - Conselho Editorial de Publicações Científicas -CEPC) of UNESP and with the legal support of the university concludes that it is a case of misconduct. The Eclética Química Committee will be composed of 5 members: the Editor-in-Chief, an Associate Editor, a member of the Editorial Advisory Board, a member of EBSJ and a lawyer from the university's legal team.

Issuing an expression of concern

An issuing expression of concern can be evolved into a retracting publication analysis.

The Editor-in-Chief should consider issuing an expression of concern if:

• Some denouncements or suspicion of misconduct is received about the manuscript or authors from Associated Editors, Reviewers, or anybody.
• There is inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors.
• There is evidence that the results are unreliable, and the authors’ institution will not investigate the case.
• The Editor believes that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial, or conclusive.
• An investigation is underway, but a judgment will not be available for a considerable time.

 

 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY

Authors

Authors or the Corresponding authors (on behalf of all authors) are obliged to disclose any potential conflict of interest, which can be of a personal, commercial, political, academic, or financial nature. It can occur when authors, reviewers or editors have interests that may influence the preparation or evaluation of a manuscript.

The author(s) should declare in a signed document any potential conflict of interest that may have influenced the work. This document must be uploaded upon submission as a supplementary file or declared in the proper cover letter template.

 

Example of declaration when there is no conflict of interest:

"On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author declares and signs there is no conflict of interest involving this work."

 

Example of declaration of conflict of interest:

"This study was financed by a grant from (name, city, and country of Corporation). Dr. (surname) is on the scientific advisory board of (name, city, and country of Corporation). Dr. (surname) is a consultant and shareholder of (name, city, and country of Corporation). Drs. (surnames) declare no conflicts of interest associated with this study."

 

Editors and Reviewers

Editors should avoid making decisions on manuscripts that conflict with their interests, such as those submitted by authors from their department, research collaborators or relatives.

The reviewer should inform the editors of any conflicts of interest which may influence the evaluation of the manuscript and must declare themselves unqualified to review it, before beginning the review. Examples of relationship with the author(s): participating or having participated in a research project; maintaining or having maintained scientific collaboration with research groups; having a mentoring relationship with the author; having a financial interest in the project involved in the manuscript, being related to the author(s).

 

 

ABOUT THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are accepted since the authors declare and explicitly inform if they have been used to revise the grammar or improve the quality of English in the written process. If any AI tool is used to write one or more paragraphs of the manuscript or to make improvements to the English text, other than minor corrections, its use must be declared in the Methodology of the manuscript. The information should describe in detail what, how and where AI was used. The lack of clear and complete information can cause requirements from the editor to the authors or the article rejection.

Declaration of generative AI in scientific writing

The following guidance only applies to the writing process and does not apply to using AI tools for data analysis or drawing insights as part of the research process.

Authors are advised to use generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies (e.g., ChatGPT-3. ChatGTP-4), exclusively to enhance readability and language quality during the writing process. The usage of these technologies should be done with human oversight and control, and authors should carefully review and edit the generated output as AI has the potential to produce content that may sound authoritative but could be incorrect, incomplete, or biased.

AI and AI-assisted technologies should not be listed as an author or co-author or be cited as an author. Authorship implies responsibilities and tasks that can only be attributed to and performed by humans, as outlined in policy for authors.

When the use of AI or AI-assisted technologies in the writing process, authors must include a statement about it in the Ethics section with the following content:

Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process: during the preparation of this work the author(s) used [NAME TOOL / SERVICE] to [REASON]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and are fully responsible for the publication content.

The following guidance only applies to the writing process and does not apply to using AI tools for data analysis or drawing insights as part of the research process. If no AI tools were used, report "AI tools were not used."

 

 

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data availability statement informs the reader where the data associated with your work is available, and under what conditions they can be accessed. They also include links (where applicable) to the data set.

1. The data are available in a data repository (cite repository and the DOI of the deposited data).
2. The data will be available upon request.
3. All data sets were generated or analyzed in the current study.
4. Data sharing is not applicable (in cases where no data sets have been generated or analyzed during the current study, it should be declared).

 

 

PRIVACY DECLARATION

The names and addresses provided in Eclética Química will be used exclusively for the services provided by this publication and will not be made available for other purposes or to third parties.

 

 

ARCHIVING

The digital archives of Eclética Química are preserved in the server located at the São Paulo State University-UNESP but managed by the DTI of the Institute of Chemistry. The Server is in the data center infrastructure of the Institution and is operated and maintained by its Informatic Team, and the backup is daily done. In addition, a backup of the digital archives of the journal is performed once a week by the Journal's staff to an external hard disk. The digital archives of Eclética Química are also preserved in the Redalyc, DOAJ and the Brazilian publications preservation service of the Cariniana Network of the Brazilian Institute of Information in Science and Technology (IBICT).

 

 

SPONSORS

The Eclética Química is supported by the Institute of Chemistry/UNESP and publication is free of charge for authors. Public Institutions such as CNPq and FAPESP may contribute to the journal if the Journal’s projects are applied to CNPq and/or FAPESP Public Notices.

 

FLOWCHART FOR THE EDITORIAL PROCESS

To make transparent the editorial process to authors, readers, members of the Editorial Team and the community, the flowchart is published on the webpage of the journal.

 

Editorial Flowchart

Action 2: Between two actions:
a. Check if the invited reviewers accepted the invitation (3 days). If not, send a reminder via email and send a list to Staff with more reviewers. Staff sends reminders for AE.
b. Check if the reviewing deadline (1st round 21 days) is soon and send an alert to reviewers (Staff makes this too).
c. To find the e-mail address of the reviewer who has agreed to give an opinion, go to: Submission ---> Users & Roles ---> Search ---> Type the reviewer's name
d. For invited reviews: Use your reviewer list sent to staff.

Action 3: Receiving the reviews (minimum 2 - Round 1) 
a. Read the review: observe if it contributes to improving the MS and is polite.
b. If it is not polite, clean the review, maintaining its essence.
c. If the review does not contribute or is too superficial (find another reviewer – 3 days)
Send decision to Staff (5 days)
Send to authors (they have 45 days) or recommend rejection in the present form (new submission possible)

Action 4: Receiving reviews (minimum 2 - Round 2 or more)

a. Reading the review: observe if it contributes to improving the MS and is polite.
b. If it is not polite, clean the review, maintaining its essence.
Send decision to Staff (5 days maximum)
c. Send to authors (30 days) or recommend rejection in the present form (new submission possible)

Action 5: Receiving the reviews (minimum 2 - Round 2 or more)
a. Read the review: observe if it contributes to improving the MS and is polite.
b. If it is not polite, clean the review, maintaining its essence.
Send decision to Staff (5 days maximum)
Recommend acceptance or go to another round or Reject.

 

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

In general, there are two (2) or three (3) rounds, and rarely one (1) or four (4) rounds. 

Deadline information for editors, authors, and reviewers

Editor-in-Chef: after submission/acceptance recommendation by the associated editor.

5 working days to evaluate the similarity report and indicate the Associated Editor.
5 working days to make the final decision about accepting/rejecting the manuscript and make some comments for editors/authors.
-2 days for checking the similarity report before publishing.

Associated editor

-7 days to inform the authors about necessary corrections (before the peer review process) and to inform 5 reviewers to be invited.
-3 days for sending more reviewers to be invited when needed.
-5 days for moving the manuscript from one to another round.
-5 days to make the recommendation/rejection decision to the Editor-in-Chief.
-5 days for reading the final version of the manuscript.

Authors

-7 days to answer the editor/staff comments (before going to peer review).
-45 days to revise the manuscript for the 1^st round.
-30 days to review the manuscript for the other rounds.

Exceeding these deadlines, the manuscript will be rejected, except if the Editor-in-Chief authorizes extending the deadline. The authors may resubmit the manuscript as a new submission once the recommendations of the reviewers/editor(s) have been met.

3 working days for revising the proofreading.

Reviewer

-3 days to answer the invitation from the staff.
-21 days for reviewing the manuscript for the first round.
-15 days for reviewing the manuscript for the other rounds.

 

The reviewers are chosen considering their expertise in the subject to be reviewed. They are preferentially from different parts of the country and abroad, and rarely from the Institute of Chemistry (UNESP).

Eclética Química is compromised with the open science initiatives and will progressively offer to authors and corresponding reviewers the disclosure of identity after answering properly the questions presented for authors (upon submission) and reviewers (when doing the review).

Open Peer Review and Open Report

Looking to respond to the Open Science guidelines, Eclética Química announces to readers and contributors that it is optionally adopting Open Peer Review and Open Reports. This may include one or some of the publishing actions:

1. publishing the reviews;
2. opening discussions between authors, editors, and reviewers;
3. opening the review process before publishing via pre-prints;
4. sharing the identity of reviewers and authors, among other procedures.

For Eclética Química, Open Peer Review comprises providing the published article and the names of the reviewers, provided they previously consented. Open Report embraces publishing the reviews, and the authors' responses to the reviewers. If the reviewers do not consent to the publication of their names, the reviews may be published anonymously.

Why adopt Open Peer Review and Open Report?

• Higher transparency of the global analysis and publishing process;
• Better understanding of publishing activities;
• Publishing the reviews and reviewers' names may assign value to the peer review process and evidence its scientific importance;
• The educational contribution to future reviewers and those interested in.

Why does not adopt Open Peer Review and Open Report?

• The efficacy of publishing reviews and reviewers' names over anonymously reviewing is not a consensus among experts;
• The current risks of revealing the reviewers' names are a decrease in available reviewers and fear of personal retaliation;
• Spelling and punctuation errors are a concern for reviewers and editors.

Eclética Química's editor believes the risks and fears above will decrease in relevance with a progressive adoption of the Open Peer Review and Open Report processes.

References
PLOS. (2022). Open Peer Review. Available at: https://plos.org/resource/open-peer-review/ 

Presently, the peer review is double-blind, and all steps are done through the OJS online system, version 3.3.0.14. Eclética Química offers the option of disclosure of the identity of authors to the reviewers and of disclosure the identity of the reviewers. The reviewers are stimulated to share their reports with the other reviewers. The journal respects their decision.

Eclética Química offers the possibility to publish the reviewer report of articles with or without the disclosure of the reviewers’ identity, according to the reviewers' response.

Peer review, regardless of the format, functions as a guarantee of the integrity of the academic record. The process is largely based on trust and requires all actors to be responsible and ethical. Peer reviewers have a central and critical role in the peer review process and must assume this role with knowledge of their ethical obligations. Therefore, reviewers are highly recommended to follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines. According to the COPE Ethical guidelines, some recommendations that the reviewers should consider are:

• Agree to review manuscripts in the specific subject they are experts in to make a proper evaluation in time.
• Respect the confidentiality of peer review during or after the peer-review process and do not reveal any details of a manuscript.
• Do not use any information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.
• Declare all potential conflicting interests.
• Prepare the review without any influence by the origins of the manuscript, by any characteristics of the authors (nationality, religion, gender or other), or by commercial interest.
• Make constructive reviews and avoid hostile, inflammatory, personal, or defamatory comments.
• To recognize that peer review is largely a reciprocal effort and try to do a fair review in time.
• Give journals accurate and true personal and professional information able to reveal their expertise.
• Recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.

Editor-in-chief responsibility

• Review the compliance with the standards and the scope of the journal. Failure to comply with the scope results in the rejection of the article and non-compliance with the standards leads to the request its compliance by the authors.
• Manage all activities of the different actors involved in the editorial and publication process from the submission up to and after publishing a manuscript.
• Revise and update the editorial policy.
• Stimulate activities regarding open science.
• Analyze the ITHENTICATE report of plagiarism generated by using the ITHENTICATE software of all articles submitted to the journal and decide which can be rejected or request the authors to change parts of the manuscript.
•  Appoint one associated or section editor after attending the scope and requirement of non-plagiarism.
• Request information and corrections from the authors in conjunction with or separately from peer review reports.
• Take the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript.
• Take all measures when there is a denouncement, suspicion or information of misconduct involving manuscripts, authors, reviewers or Associate or Section Editors.
• Take all necessary measures when there is a denouncement, suspicion or information of misconduct involving published articles. In this case, the Eclética Química Ethical Committee will investigate and decide if it is misconduct based on the Retractions Guidelines from COPE.
• Inform the Editorial Board of Scientific Journals (EBSJ - Conselho Editorial de Publicações Científicas - CEPC) of UNESP when receiving a suspicion or denouncement of misconduct.
• Inform the authors/Institution clearly and transparently of the article retracted and the reasons for retracting.
• The Editor-in-chief must declare any conflict of interest related to authors, manuscripts and other editors that could influence the peer review process.

Associated or Section Editors’ responsibility

• Associated or Section Editors should accompany the manuscript until the final decision of the Editor-in-Chief.
• Inform the Editor-in-chief immediately about any misconduct from the authors or reviewers.
• Control own deadlines and the deadlines of the authors and reviewers, reminding them in time.
• Provide a list with 5 reviewers to be invited and more lists if necessary.
• Inform the staff if the manuscript may go to the second (2^nd) round after at least 2 (two) favorable reviewers' opinions. If one reviewer rejects, two more reviewers should be invited. In this case, most reports must be favorable for the article to go ahead. The same procedure should be adopted for other rounds.
• The article is rejected when 2 reviewers reject it, or the deadline for revising is exceeded. In any case, resubmission as a new submission is permitted since all editors' and reviewers' recommendations are attended.
• The Associated or Section Editors may request information and corrections from the authors in conjunction with or separately from peer review reports.
• Inform the staff or Editor-in-chief if the article can be accepted.
• The Associated and Section editors must declare any conflict of interest related to authors, manuscripts and other editors that could influence the peer review process.

Advisory Editorial Board: Goals and responsibilities
The goal of the Advisory Editorial Board

• To contribute to the review process.
• Aid in maintaining the quality of the publications.
• To consider innovative developments for the journal.
•  Send Letters to the Editor commenting on a published article.

Responsibilities

• Advise and support the editor-in-chief.
• Give feedback on past issues to the Editor-in-Chief and make suggestions for both subject matter and potential authors.
• When provoked by the Editor-in-Chief, provide second opinions on papers where there is a conflict between reviewers.
• Endorse the journal to authors and readers and encourage colleagues to submit good work.
• Take part in the Eclética Química Committee to investigate publication retracting.

Corresponding author’s responsibility

• Write the cover letter with:
• Correctly inform the full name, address and ORCID of all authors.
• Write one paragraph remarking on the novelty and relevance of the work.
• Declare that is responsible together with the co-authors for the integrity of the results submitted for publication.
• Declare, on behalf of the other authors, that the submitted manuscript is original, and its content has not been published previously and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
• Declare if there is or is not a conflict of interest between authors.
• Inform the AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS according to CRediT taxonomy standardized contribution descriptions.
• Inform if some Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools have been used to prepare any part of the manuscript, to revise the grammar or to improve the English quality. The information should describe in detail what, how and where AI was used. The lack of clear and complete information can cause requirements from the editor to the authors or the article rejection.
• Suggest 5 (five) potential reviewers for the manuscript.

• Inform the readers/reviewers how to access the research data and under what conditions they can be accessed.
• Inform the coauthors that articles published in Eclética Química are under the Creative Commons license CC BY 4.0.
• Inform upon manuscript submission of the compliance with ethical precepts when applied (send it as a supplementary file or in the cover letter).
• Return to the journal the revised manuscript and proofreading in time.
• Maintain updated email address and telephone and inform the journal of any address change.
• Answer as soon as possible all solicitations from the journal.

Reviewers’ responsibility

• Invited reviewers should answer the invitation at the first opportunity they open the email. When declining the review, it is highly recommended to suggest at least two potential reviewers. Before deciding to decline or accept to review you may visit, for instance, the website: https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/how-to-review.
• Analyze and give a detailed opinion, suggesting positive contributions to improve the manuscript.
• Present the reviewing report in time: 3 weeks for the first round and 2 weeks for the subsequent rounds.
• Inform the Editor-in-Chief in advance when an extended review time is necessary.
• Inform the Associated or Section Editor about any suspicion of misconduct involving the manuscript or authors.
• Following the COPE Ethical Guidelinesfor peer reviews is highly recommended.
• Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest related to authors, manuscripts and editors that could influence the peer review process.
• Reviewers have a central and critical role in the peer review process and must assume this role with knowledge of their ethical obligations.
• To review afresh any manuscript, they have previously reviewed is highly recommended.
• Answer all questions of the Review Form.
• Eclética Química stimulates the reviewers to allow the journal to share their reports with the other reviewers and offers the possibility to publish the reviewers’ reports with or without disclosing the reviewers’ identity. In any case, the journal respects the reviewer's decision.
• Eclética Química respects the reviewers’ choice.
• Choice an answer for the different options offered to the reviewers and contribute to open review practices.

 

 

Eclética Química uses the Review Form below to evaluate the submissions:

Present Review Form

Dear Reviewer,

We are sending you the attached article for analysis and detailed opinion. The editor maintains the identity of the reviewer under strict confidentiality, according to your answers to the questions below. We asked the reviewer to adopt the same procedure. Eclética Química offers several options to disclose or not some information according to your decision.

 

About stimulating open review practices

Please, answer the following questions by indicating Yes / No, where applicable.

(a) Do you agree to share your report with the other reviewers of this article maintaining anonymity?*

Yes (  )
No  (  )
I prefer not to answer (  )

(b) Do you agree to the disclosure of your identity to the authors if they agree to disclose their identity to you?*

Yes (  )
No  (  )
I prefer not to answer (  )

(c) Do you agree to publish your review report if the authors agree to publish their response to the reviewers while maintaining your anonymity?*

Yes (  )
No  (  )
I prefer not to answer (  )

(d) Do you agree to publish your review report if the authors agree to publish their response to the reviewers disclosing all identities?*

Yes (  )
No  (  )
I prefer not to answer (  )

 

About the manuscript

Are the Title and Keywords appropriate to the subject of the article ?*

Yes (  )
No  (  )

Is the Abstract adequate and informative? *

Yes (  )
No  (  )

Does the Graphical Abstract represent the essence of the manuscript?*

Yes (  )
No  (  )

Is the English satisfactory?*

Yes (  )
No  (  )

Is the manuscript well written, organized and presented?*

Yes (  )
No  (  )

In the case of a Review or Technical Note, is the manuscript a new and original contribution?*

Yes (  )
No  (  )

Is the subject addressed in this article worthy of investigation?*

Yes (  )
No  (  )

Are the conclusions supported by the data?*

Yes (  )
No  (  )

Is the bibliography adequate and represents relevant previous work?*

Yes (  )
No  (  )

Are all figures and tables necessary?*

Yes (  )
No  (  )

Is the quality of the figures suitable for publication?*

Yes (  )
No  (  )

Does the manuscript contain any material that can be omitted without loss of quality*

Comments to authors:*

Overall manuscript rating (1-10):

(1 means weak and 10 excellent)*

Recommendation:*

(  ) Accept
(  ) Accept, provided you comply with the modifications suggested by the reviewers and editor
(  ) Revisions are required, send a revised version of the article for review
(  ) Reject in the present form, but may be resubmitted provided a deep revision is made according to reviewers' suggestions
(  ) Reject

Confidential comments to Editor:*

Now, about our system.

1. We would like you to evaluate our questionnaire/review process (from 1 to 10, 1 means weak and 10 excellent). 

 

 

 

2. Please, your criticism and suggestions are welcome.