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 1st 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 (Access the instructions for reviewers here)

-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 (2nd) 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). 

 

 

 

  1. Please, your criticism and suggestions are welcome.