Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Deadline information for editors, authors, and reviewers

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

 

When the journal receives a manuscript, there is a pre-review step:

The manuscript is submitted to the ITHENTICATE similarity check, and the Editor-in-Chief analyzes the report.
Manuscripts are pre-evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors, who will consider the following factors: originality, contribution, relevance, thematic relevance, general structure, and compliance with editorial policies.
If any adjustments are necessary regarding the general structure or compliance with the journal's recommendations, the manuscript will be returned to the authors within an average of 5 working days. The authors must resubmit the manuscript to the journal within 10 working days.
In the event of a lack of originality, contribution, relevance, thematic relevance or failure to meet deadlines without justification, the authors will be notified within 15 working days that the article will be rejected and archived.

 

Editor-in-Chef
Uploading part or the entire manuscript to an AI tool by the Editor-in-Chief, even if it is to improve language and readability, IS NOT PERMITTED, because confidentiality may be breached. Manuscripts submitted to a journal are confidential documents.

-7 working days to complete the pre-review step and communicate with the authors.
-2 working days to indicate the Associate Editor
-2 working days for checking the similarity report before publishing.
-5 working days to make the final decision about accepting/rejecting the manuscript and make some comments for editors/authors.

 

Associated editor
Uploading part or the entire manuscript to an AI tool by Associate Editors, even if it is to improve language and readability, IS NOT PERMITTED, because confidentiality may be breached. Manuscripts submitted to a journal are confidential documents.

-Notify the editor-in-chief about any suspicions of ethical issues at any time.
-5 working days 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
-10 working days to answer the editor/staff comments on the pre-review step. (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.

3 working days for proofreading revisions.

Exceeding these deadlines, the manuscript will be rejected, unless the Editor-in-Chief authorizes extending the deadline. The authors may resubmit the manuscript as a new submission once the editor's recommendations have been addressed.
If necessary, the authors should request additional time from the Editor-in-Chief.

 

Reviewer (Access the instructions for reviewers here)

-5 days to answer the invitation from the staff or editors.
-21 days for reviewing the manuscript for the first round.
-15 days for reviewing the manuscript for the other rounds.

 

The reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject being reviewed. They are predominantly from different parts of the country and abroad, and rarely from the Institute of Chemistry at UNESP.

Eclética Química is committed to open science initiatives and will progressively offer authors and corresponding reviewers the option to disclose their identity after answering the questions presented for authors (upon submission) and reviewers (during the review process).

Open Peer Review and Open Report

In response 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 promotes the publication of reviews and the authors' responses to 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 do we not adopt Open Peer Review and Open Reports?

  • The efficacy of publishing reviews and reviewers' names over anonymous 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 that the risks and fears above will decrease in relevance as the Open Peer Review and Open Report processes are progressively adopted.

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

Currently, the peer review process is double-blind, and all steps are conducted 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 play a central and critical role in the peer review process and must assume this role with a thorough understanding 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.

 

Confidentiality and anonymity

Confidentiality and anonymity are essential pillars of the peer review process at Eclética Química. The Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors have the primary responsibility to strictly safeguard the privacy of all those involved in the publication process. This includes protecting the identity of reviewers in the standard double-blind model, as well as the confidentiality of the content of manuscripts at all stages, from submission to final decision and publication.
The editors ensure that the information contained in articles, prior to their publication, remains confidential and is not used for their own benefit or that of third parties. This commitment ensures a fair and impartial evaluation environment, which is fundamental to the scientific integrity of the journal.

 

Editor-in-chief responsibility

  • The Editor-in-Chief must conduct the entire editorial process from receipt of the submission to publication of the manuscript with impartiality and free from any type of bias regardless of its nature. Be aware of the possibility of unconscious bias and take care to avoid it.
  • Review compliance with the journal's standards and scope. Failure to comply with the scope results in the rejection of the article and non-compliance with the standards leads to a request for compliance from 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 determine if there 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.

  • Freedom of expression: The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for upholding the freedom of expression (both oral and written) of authors, reviewers, editorial team members, and readers. Freedom of expression should be practiced with respect and without any form of prejudice. The Editor-in-Chief will respond whenever possible to comments by email or other written means and will endeavor to resolve any potential conflicts that may arise from these comments.

Associated or Section Editors’ responsibility

  • Associated or Section Editors must also conduct the entire editorial process from receipt of the submission to publication of the manuscript with impartiality and free from any type of bias regardless of its nature. Be aware of the possibility of unconscious bias and take care to avoid it.
  • 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 those of authors and reviewers, reminding them in a timely manner.
  • Provide a list of 5 reviewers to be invited, with additional lists as 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, as all editors' and reviewers' recommendations have been addressed.
  • 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 readers and reviewers on how to access the research data and under what conditions it 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 improving 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 Guidelines for 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 any manuscript afresh that they have previously reviewed is highly recommended.
  • Answer all questions on 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 regarding 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 disclose some information according to your decision.

Uploading part or the entire manuscript to an AI tool, even if it is to improve language and readability, IS NOT PERMITTED. 

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  (  )

Do the data support the conclusions? *

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 the Editor: *

Now, about our system.

  1. We would like you to evaluate our questionnaire and review the process (on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is weak and 10 is excellent). 
  2. Please feel free to share your criticism and suggestions.