Review Process

Peer Review Policy

The International Journal for Research in Chemistry (IJRC) follows an editorial assessment and double-blind peer review process to evaluate the quality, originality, relevance, scientific validity, and academic integrity of submitted manuscripts in chemistry and related disciplines.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript is initially assessed by the Editorial Office and/or an appropriate member of the editorial team.

The initial assessment considers whether the manuscript:

• Falls within the journal's aims and scope.
• Meets the journal's submission and formatting requirements.
• Demonstrates originality and a meaningful scientific contribution.
• Meets appropriate academic, research, and ethical standards.
• Is suitable for external peer review.

Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet essential requirements, lack sufficient scientific merit, raise significant ethical concerns, or are otherwise unsuitable for publication.

Authors may be invited to make preliminary corrections or revisions before a decision is made regarding external peer review. The time required for initial assessment may vary according to the manuscript and editorial workload.

2. External Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally sent to independent experts with appropriate subject expertise. IJRC follows a double-blind peer review system in which, as far as reasonably possible, the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another.

Each manuscript sent for external review is normally evaluated by at least two qualified independent reviewers. Additional reviews may be sought when required by the subject matter, complexity of the manuscript, reviewer recommendations, or other editorial considerations.

Review timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the need for additional assessments. Authors should avoid including unnecessary identifying information in manuscripts prepared for double-blind review.

3. Editorial Decision

Reviewer reports and recommendations form an important part of the editorial decision-making process. However, reviewers provide recommendations rather than final publication decisions.

The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorized editor acting under the journal's editorial policies.

Editors may request additional reviews, clarifications, or revisions before reaching a final decision.

4. Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers help maintain the quality, reliability, originality, and scientific integrity of IJRC publications. They are expected to provide fair, independent, objective, confidential, and constructive assessments of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewers should:

• Assess the manuscript objectively and within their area of expertise.
• Evaluate originality, scientific contribution, methodology, evidence, and interpretation.
• Provide clear, specific, professional, and constructive comments.
• Identify major and minor concerns where possible.
• Explain the basis for their recommendations.
• Avoid offensive, discriminatory, personal, or unnecessarily harsh language.
• Notify the editor of suspected ethical or publication-integrity concerns.
• Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.

5. Confidentiality of Manuscripts

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share or distribute manuscripts, disclose unpublished information, use manuscript content for personal or professional benefit, or discuss submissions publicly before publication.

Reviewers must not independently forward a manuscript to another person for review. If assistance from another expert is considered necessary, prior permission must be obtained from the Editorial Office.

6. Research and Publication Integrity

Reviewers should promptly notify the editor if they identify concerns relating to:

• Plagiarism or substantial similarity with previously published work.
• Duplicate or simultaneous submission.
• Fabrication or falsification of data.
• Inappropriate image manipulation or data presentation.
• Authorship or contributorship concerns.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
• Research ethics or informed-consent concerns, where applicable.
• Significant methodological or scientific deficiencies.
• Other potential breaches of research or publication integrity.

7. Reviewer Recommendations

Following evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute the final publication decision. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or appropriately authorized editorial authority.

8. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, the impartiality of their assessment.

Conflicts may include:

• Personal or professional relationships with an author.
• Recent collaboration with an author.
• Current or recent institutional relationships.
• Financial interests or direct professional competition.
• Academic interests or other circumstances that may create a risk of bias.

Reviewers who cannot provide an impartial assessment should decline the invitation.

9. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Because submitted manuscripts are confidential, reviewers must not upload or disclose unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, or confidential manuscript information to publicly accessible generative AI systems or external AI tools unless expressly authorized by the journal.

AI-generated content must not replace the reviewer's own expert assessment and professional judgment. Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity of their reviews.

Any use of AI-assisted tools must comply with the journal's applicable policies and instructions provided by the Editorial Office.

10. Editorial Board Member Submissions

Manuscripts submitted by members of the IJRC Editorial Board must be handled independently to ensure fairness, transparency, and editorial integrity. The submitting board member must be excluded from editorial handling, reviewer selection, peer-review oversight, and decision-making concerning their manuscript. Such submissions should be assigned to an independent editor without a conflict of interest and undergo the same peer-review standards and evaluation criteria as other submissions.

11. Editorial Independence and Final Responsibility

Peer reviewers provide independent expert advice to the editorial team. Reviewer recommendations are considered alongside the manuscript's scientific quality, editorial assessment, ethical considerations, and other relevant information. No reviewer recommendation automatically determines the outcome. The Editor-in-Chief or appropriately authorized editorial authority retains responsibility for the final editorial decision.

12. Ethical Responsibility

The International Journal for Research in Chemistry (IJRC) is committed to maintaining confidentiality, impartiality, academic integrity, and responsible editorial decision-making throughout the peer-review process.

All participants are expected to uphold:

• Confidentiality of manuscripts and review materials.
• Fair and objective evaluation.
• Transparency in editorial communication.
• Disclosure and appropriate management of conflicts of interest.
• Research and publication integrity.
• Respect for authors, reviewers, and editorial staff.