Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process - Updated July 14, 2026.
To ensure transparency in the editorial process for authors, readers, members of the Editorial Team, and the broader community, the peer review process is publicly available on the journal's webpage.

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 preprints.
  4. Sharing the identity of reviewers and authors, among other procedures.

For Eclética Química, Open Peer Review consists of publishing the article and the reviewers' names, provided they have 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 it.

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 become less relevant 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/ 

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 in which they are experts to make a proper evaluation in a timely manner.
  • 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 from the origins of the manuscript, from any characteristics of the authors (nationality, religion, gender, or other), or from 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 a timely manner.
  • Give journals accurate, true personal and professional information that reveals their expertise.
  • Recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.

 

Currently, the peer review process is double-blind, and all steps are conducted through the OJS online system, version 3.3. Eclética Química offers the option of disclosure of the identity of authors to the reviewers and of 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.

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 reviewers' identities in the standard double-blind model, as well as maintaining the confidentiality of manuscript content at all stages, from submission to final decision and publication.
The editors ensure that the information contained in articles remains confidential before publication and is not used for their benefit or that of third parties. This commitment provides a fair and impartial evaluation environment, which is fundamental to the journal’s scientific integrity.


AI TOOLS POLICY
Uploading part or the entire manuscript to an AI tool by the Editor-in-Chief, the Associate editor and Reviewers, 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.


REVIEW STEPS
Uploading part or the entire manuscript to an AI tool by the editor-in-chief, associate editors and reviewers 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.

Eclética Química encourages all people involved in the Editorial Process, from submission to publication, to adhere to the established schedule.

Format review: Upon receiving a submission, the first step is to obtain the similarity report and verify compliance with the journal's guidelines. The manuscript is submitted to the ITHENTICATE similarity software, and the editor-in-chief analyses the report. If the manuscript is approved, it goes to the next step. If not, it is returned to the authors for adjustments within 5 working days. If any adjustments are necessary regarding the general structure or compliance with the journal's recommendations, the manuscript will be returned to the journal within an average of 7 working days. In some cases, the manuscript may be returned to the authors more than once for adjustments not initially made. Completing this step, the editor-in-chief has 2 days to indicate an associate editor.

Desk Review: Manuscripts are pre-evaluated by the editor-in-chief and/or associate editors, who will consider the following factors: originality, contribution, relevance, general structure, and compliance with editorial policies. If approved, it goes to the peer-review process, otherwise it is rejected. In the event of a lack of originality, contribution, relevance, or failure to meet deadlines without justification, the authors will be notified within 20 working days that the article will be rejected and archived.

Peer Review: The associate editor has 5 days to invite up to 5 potential reviewers or inform the journal's staff to invite them, and 5 days to invite new reviewers when necessary. The invited reviewers have 5 days to accept or decline the invitation. More reviewers are normally invited. After the acceptance to evaluate the manuscript, the reviewers should read the instructions for reviewers here. They have 21 days for the first round and 15 days for the others to give their evaluation. The authors have 45 days for the first round and 30 days for the others to make the required corrections or refute them, including a separate file with a mandatory letter to reviewers. Authors and reviewers may request an extension from the editor-in-chief, which is granted based on the requested period and its justification. The associate editor accompanies the review process through all rounds and recommends to the editor-in-chief whether to accept or reject the manuscript. The associate editor. The associate editor should inform/respond to the staff of any necessary action (moving from one round to another, returning to authors or reviewers and acceptance or rejection suggestion) within 5 working days. It is highly recommended that the associate editors read the manuscript before suggesting its acceptance or rejection. They are free to ask questions and make comments to authors and reviewers at any time during the peer-review process. Associate editors should notify the editor-in-chief about any suspicions of ethical issues at any time. In general, there are two (2) or three (3) rounds, and rarely one (1) or four (4) rounds.

Eclética Química encourages all people involved in the Editorial Process, from submission to publication, to adhere to adhere to the established schedule.

Manuscript acceptance or rejection: The acceptance or rejection of a manuscript is the responsibility of the editor-in-chief after receiving the suggestion from the associate editors. The editor-in-chief generally has 7 working days to make the final decision on whether to accept or reject the manuscript and to provide comments to associate editors or authors. In some cases, the editor-in-chief may ask the authors for further corrections or information, with or without the associate editor, which may delay acceptance by a few more days. After acceptance, the manuscript is moved to the copyediting stage.

Preparation for publication: The staff prepares the manuscript for publication from the copyediting file, with assistance from the editor-in-chief as needed and submits it to the authors. The authors have 3 working days for proofreading revisions.

Other information: At any stage, if deadlines are exceeded, authors and reviewers can request an extension from the Editor-in-Chief. The extension depends on the justification and the time necessary to return the reviewer's report of the corrected version of the manuscript. A rejected manuscript can be resubmitted by the authors as a new submission once the editor's and reviewers' criticisms have been addressed completely.


RESPONSIBILITIES
a) 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 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 manuscript, 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.
  • Analyze the ITHENTICATE report of plagiarism generated by using the ITHENTICATE software on all articles submitted to the journal and decide which can be rejected or request the authors to change parts of the manuscript.
  • The Editor-in-Chief must declare any conflict of interest related to authors, manuscripts and other editors that could influence the peer review process.
  • Appoint one associated or section editor after attending to the scope and requirements 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 whether there is misconduct in accordance with the COPE Retractions Guidelines.
  • Inform the Editorial Board of Scientific Journals (EBSJ –Conselho Editorial de Publicações Científicas- CEPC) of UNESP when receiving a suspicion or denunciation of misconduct.
  • Inform the authors/Institution clearly and transparently of the article retracted and the reasons for retracting.
  • 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.
  • Revise and update the editorial policy together with the Editorial Board.
  • Stimulate activities regarding open science.

b) Associate or Section Editors’ responsibility

  • Associate 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 bias, regardless of its nature. Be aware of the possibility of unconscious bias and take care to avoid it.
  • Associate 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 by the authors or reviewers.
  • Control your own deadlines and those of authors and reviewers and remind them on time.
  • Provide a list of 5 reviewers to invite, with additional lists as needed.
  • 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 if 2 reviewers reject it or the revision deadline is exceeded. In any case, resubmission as a new submission is permitted, as all editors' and reviewers' recommendations have been addressed.
  • The Associate 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 Associate and Section editors must declare any conflict of interest related to authors, manuscripts and other editors that could influence the peer review process.

c) Advisory Editorial Board: Goals and responsibilities
     I) 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.
  • Help the Editor define and prepare the Journal policies
  • Send Letters to the Editor commenting on a published article.

    II) 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 their best work.
  • Take part in the Eclética Química Committee to investigate publication retraction.

d) 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 you are 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 the 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 lead to the editor issuing requirements to the authors or to the rejection of the article.
    • OPTIONAL: Suggest 5(five) potential reviewers for the manuscript. Reviewers from the same Campus, Institute/Faculty or Department cannot be indicated.
  • Inform readers and reviewers how to access the research data and under what conditions.
  • 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 the revised manuscript and proofread it for the journal in time.
  • Maintain an updated email address and telephone number and inform the journal of any address change.
  • Answer as soon as possible all solicitations from the journal.

e) Reviewers’ responsibility

  • Invited reviewers should respond to the invitation at the first opportunity they open their email. When declining the review, it is highly recommended to suggest at least two potential reviewers. Before deciding whether to accept or decline a 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 on time: 21 days for the first round and 15 daysfor the subsequent rounds.
  • Inform the Editor-in-Chiefin 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 play a central and critical role in the peer review process and must do so with knowledge of their ethical obligations.
  • Reviewing any manuscript afresh, even if they have previously reviewed it, is highly recommended.
  • Answer all questions on the Review Form.
  • Choose an answer regarding the different options offered to the reviewers and contribute to open review practices. Eclética Química encourages reviewers to allow the journal to share their reports with other reviewers and offers the option to publish the reviewers’ reports with or without disclosing their identities. In any case, the journal respects the reviewer's decision.

 

Review Form updated on July 14, 2026
Eclética Química uses four types of review forms to evaluate submitted manuscripts, according to the section selected by the authors: Original Articles in Chemistry, Related Fields, and Chemistry Education; Reviews and Short Reviews; Letters; and Technical Notes.

All review forms contain standardized introductory and final sections. The central questions, however, are specifically adapted to the characteristics and evaluation criteria of each manuscript section.

 

Dear Reviewer,
We are sending you the attached manuscript for analysis and a 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.

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

Eclética Química stimulates the open review practices. Then, offers several options to disclose or not disclose some information according to your decision.

OPEN PEER REVIEW PRACTICES
Please answer the following questions regarding the disclosure of your review report and your identity.

During the review process
1. Do you agree to share your review report with the other reviewers of this manuscript?
(   ) Yes, while remaining anonymous.
(   ) Yes, revealing my identity.
(   ) No, I do not agree to share my review report.

2. Do you agree to reveal your identity to the authors if they also agree to reveal their identities to you?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

Upon publication
3. Do you agree to publish your review report if the authors agree to publish their response to the reviewers?
(   ) Yes, while remaining anonymous.
(   ) Yes, revealing my identity.
(   ) No, I do not agree to publish my review report.

Eclética Química uses the Review Form below to evaluate submissions to Chemistry and Correlated Areas and Chemistry Education sections:

ABOUT THE MANUSCRIPT
1. Is the subject addressed relevant and worthy of scientific investigation?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

2. Are the title and keywords appropriate for the content of the manuscript?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

3. Is the abstract adequate and informative?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

4. Do the Highlights adequately present the main findings, and does the Graphical Abstract appropriately represent the essence of the manuscript?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

5. Is the English language of satisfactory quality?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

6. Is the bibliography adequate and does it include the most relevant literature on the subject?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

7. Is the manuscript original, well written, and well organized?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

8. Does the methodology provide sufficient detail to allow the study to be reproduced?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

9. Are the experimental data adequately presented and discussed?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

10. Are all figures, tables, and other elements included in the manuscript necessary and do they contribute to its overall quality?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

11. Is the quality of the figures and tables suitable for publication?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

12. Do the data support the conclusions of the manuscript?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

 

Eclética Química uses the Review Form below to evaluate the submissions to Review and Short Review sections:

ABOUT THE MANUSCRIPT
1. Is the subject relevant, current, and of interest to chemists or chemistry educators?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

2. Does the manuscript provide a comprehensive, critical, and up-to-date overview of the current state of knowledge on the topic?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

3. Are the title and keywords appropriate for the content of the review or short review?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

4. Is the abstract adequate and informative?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

5. Do the Highlights clearly summarize the main points, and does the Graphical Abstract appropriately represent the essence of the review or short review?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

6. Is the English language of satisfactory quality?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

7. Is the literature search strategy and article selection process adequately described and appropriate for the scope of the review?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No
(   ) Not applicable

8. Is the manuscript well organized, clearly written, and does it provide a critical discussion of the literature rather than merely describing previous studies?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

9. Is the quality of the figures and tables suitable for publication?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

10. Does the manuscript include a concluding section that summarizes the main findings and discusses future perspectives for the field?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

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

ABOUT THE LETTER
1. What is the type of letter?
(   ) Comments on a published article
(   ) Letter on a topic of interest to the chemical sciences

REVIEW FORM
1. Is the subject relevant to chemistry and related fields
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

2. Does the letter address a topic of relevance to the scientific community and society?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

3. Does the letter have the potential to stimulate further research in chemistry and related fields?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

4. Are the title, keywords, Highlights (if applicable), and Graphical Abstract (if applicable) appropriate for the content of the letter?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

5. Is the abstract well written and informative?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

6. Is the cited literature current and appropriate?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

7. Is the text well written, clear, and logically organized?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

8. Are the arguments and comments scientifically sound?
Applicable only to "Comments on a published article".
(   ) Yes
(   ) No
(   ) Not applicable

Eclética Química uses the Review Form below to evaluate submissions to Technical Notes sections:

ABOUT THE MANUSCRIPT
1. Is the subject relevant to chemistry and related fields?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

2. Does the manuscript provide a meaningful contribution to laboratory practice in chemistry or to the use of computational tools for understanding molecular structures or materials?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

3. Are the title and keywords appropriate for the content of the manuscript?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

4. Is the abstract adequate and informative?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

5. Does the Graphical Abstract appropriately represent the essence of the manuscript?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

6. Is the English language of satisfactory quality?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

7. Is the manuscript well written, well organized, and does it include the essential literature relevant to the subject?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

8. Does the methodology provide sufficient detail to allow the work to be understood and reproduced?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

9. Are all figures, tables, and other elements included in the manuscript necessary and do they contribute to its overall quality?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

10. Is the quality of the figures and tables suitable for publication?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

11. Are the experimental procedures or computational analyses sufficient to support the objectives and conclusions presented in the manuscript?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No

Final section is the same for all 4 forms:

Have the ethical aspects of the research (when applicable) been adequately addressed?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No
(   ) Not applicable

Did you identify any potential conflict of interest, ethical concern, or indication of scientific misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, or data manipulation)?
(   ) No
(   ) Yes (please describe in the confidential comments to the Editor).

Comments to the Authors
___________________________________

If you are recommending revision, have you clearly indicated all the essential changes required for the manuscript to be suitable for publication?
(   ) Yes
(   ) No
(   ) Not applicable

Overall Manuscript Rating (1–10)
1 = Poor | 10 = Excellent
Score: _______

Recommendation
(   ) Accept
(   ) Accept after minor revisions
(   ) Revisions required
(   ) Reject

Confidential Comments to the Editor
___________________________________

EVALUATION OF OUR SUBMISSION AND PEER REVIEW SYSTEM
1. How would you rate our submission system and peer review process?
1 = Very poor | 10 = Excellent
Score: _______

2. Please feel free to share any comments, criticisms, or suggestions that could help us improve our submission system and peer review process.
___________________________________