The SCICONX Journal of Polymer Chemistry (JPC) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process. Peer review serves as a cornerstone of academic quality control, ensuring that all published research is scientifically sound, original, and relevant to the field of polymer chemistry.

The journal follows a double-blind peer review system, where the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential to promote impartial evaluation.

Objectives of Peer Review

The primary objectives of the peer review process at JPC are to:

• Ensure the scientific accuracy and validity of submitted research
• Assess the originality and novelty of the work
• Evaluate the clarity, structure, and completeness of the manuscript
• Provide constructive feedback to authors for improvement
• Assist editors in making informed and unbiased decisions

Step-by-Step Review Workflow

Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s submission system or official editorial email. Each submission must comply with the journal’s formatting and ethical guidelines.

Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the manuscript undergoes a preliminary evaluation by the editorial office or handling editor to assess:

• Relevance to the journal’s scope
• Originality and scientific merit
• Compliance with submission guidelines
• Basic language quality and structure

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review or returned for correction.

Plagiarism and Ethical Check

All submissions are screened using plagiarism detection tools to ensure originality. Manuscripts exhibiting significant overlap, duplication, or ethical concerns are handled according to the journal’s publication ethics policies.

Assignment to Handling Editor

A qualified editor with expertise in the relevant subject area is assigned to manage the peer review process. The editor oversees reviewer selection, evaluation, and final decision-making.

Reviewer Selection and Invitation

The handling editor selects independent expert reviewers based on their subject expertise, research background, and absence of conflicts of interest. Typically, two or more reviewers are invited to evaluate each manuscript.

Reviewers are requested to confirm their availability and complete the review within the specified timeframe.

Double-Blind Peer Review

In the double-blind review process:

• Reviewer identities are concealed from authors
• Author identities are concealed from reviewers

This approach ensures objectivity, fairness, and unbiased evaluation.

Reviewers assess the manuscript based on scientific quality, originality, methodology, clarity, and relevance to the journal.

Reviewer Reports and Recommendations

Reviewers submit detailed reports that include:

• General assessment of the manuscript
• Strengths and contributions
• Specific comments for improvement
• Recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject)

Editorial Decision

The handling editor evaluates reviewer comments and makes a decision based on:

• Reviewer recommendations
• Scientific merit of the manuscript
• Compliance with journal standards

Possible decisions include:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Authors are provided with reviewer feedback to guide revisions.

Revision and Resubmission

If revisions are required, authors must:

• Address all reviewer comments systematically
• Provide a detailed response to reviewers
• Highlight changes made in the revised manuscript

Revised manuscripts may be sent for further review or assessed directly by the editor.

Final Decision and Acceptance

Once the manuscript meets all scientific and editorial standards, it is accepted for publication. The editorial office communicates the final decision to the authors.

Proofreading and Publication

Accepted manuscripts undergo:

• Copyediting and formatting
• Author proof review
• Final publication with DOI assignment

Articles are published online and made freely accessible under the journal’s open-access policy.

Review Timeline

The journal strives to maintain an efficient review process:

• Initial Decision: within 2-3 days
• Peer Review Completion: 14-21 days
• Final Decision Post-Revisions: 5-7 days
• Online Publication: within 7–10 days of acceptance

Timelines may vary depending on manuscript complexity and reviewer availability.

Ethical Standards in Peer Review

JPC ensures that the peer review process adheres to strict ethical principles:

• Confidentiality: Manuscripts are treated as confidential documents
• Impartiality: Reviews are conducted without bias
• Transparency: Clear communication of decisions and feedback
• Integrity: Zero tolerance for plagiarism, data manipulation, or unethical practices

Handling Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Individuals with conflicts are excluded from the review process to ensure unbiased evaluation.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors who disagree with editorial decisions may submit an appeal with a detailed justification. The editorial team will review the appeal objectively, and additional reviewers may be consulted if necessary.

All complaints regarding the peer review process are handled professionally and transparently.

Continuous Improvement

The journal regularly evaluates its peer review system to enhance efficiency, fairness, and quality. Feedback from authors, reviewers, and editors is used to improve editorial practices.

The SCICONX Journal of Polymer Chemistry (JPC) is dedicated to ensuring that every published article meets the highest standards of scientific excellence. Through a structured and ethical peer review process, the journal aims to foster trust, credibility, and innovation in polymer chemistry research.