PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Reviewers play an essential role in scholarly publishing. Scholars have relied upon peer review to validate research, engage other specialists in the support of submitted work, and increase networking possibilities within specific specialist communities. Although in recent years the peer review process has attracted some criticism, it remains the only widely accepted method for research validation and a cornerstone of the scientific publishing process. Communications in Catalysis (CIC) relies on effective peer review processes to uphold not only the quality and validity of individual articles, but also the overall integrity of the journal.
Peer Review
Review by independent scholars provides advice to editors of scholarly journals concerning the publication of research results. It is an essential component of the scholarly enterprise, and all scholars have an obligation to participate in the process.
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for competitive gain. Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest resulting from direct competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, and avoid cases in which such conflicts preclude an objective evaluation.
Reviewers should judge objectively the quality of the research reported and respect the intellectual independence of the authors. In no case is personal criticism appropriate. Reviewers should explain and support their judgments in such a way that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments.
Reviewers should point out relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.
A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor.
Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author.
Peer Review Policy
Upon receiving a submitted manuscript, the CIC’s Editor evaluates it for suitability within the journal’s scope and ensures all basic requirements are met. Manuscripts that do not align with these criteria are rejected at the initial stage. Following this preliminary check, each paper undergoes a peer-review process conducted by experienced professors and expert reviewers with relevant expertise. The entire process, from initial review to final acceptance, typically takes between one week and one month. This procedure is designed to guarantee the high quality of research materials and serves as a robust validation mechanism for scholarly publishing.
Upon completion of the peer review, all the Reviewers send their views on the manuscript to the Editor. Reviewers do not decide on accepting or rejecting papers, they only recommend a decision on this matter to the Editor.
The Editor or the Editorial board study the Reviewers’ reports and make their final decision, which can be as follows: