Peer Review Process
All manuscripts are first screened and checked for plagiarism using “Turnitin”, for publication ethics, the journal will follow the COPE guidelines on how to deal with potential acts of misconduct.
Manuscripts not adhering to the journal guidelines will be returned to the authors without scientific evaluation.
Manuscripts adhering to the journal guidelines will be initially evaluated by the associate editor for their scope, originality, and novelty. The manuscript that passes the initial evaluation will be sent to review by at least two external double-blind reviewers who have areas of expertise related to the submitted manuscripts. The manuscript that failed from initial review will be rejected from further review process. The average time from submission to first decision will be one month.
The associate editor examines and prepare a decision letter according to the comments and suggestions of the reviewers including detailed instructions to authors on how to revise it and comply to the reviewers' comments. A decision letter is sent to the corresponding author with a recommendation to accept the work with major or minor revisions to the manuscript or to reject the work without further consideration. The average time from submission to final acceptance will be 5-12 weeks.
The Editor-in-Chief has the final right/discretion to publish or reject.
All submitted manuscripts are reviewed initially by the Editor and/or Associate Editors. Manuscripts that lack novelty or new insights and do not meet the general criteria for publication in this journal will be rejected without external peer review. In such instances, these decisions will be sent as quickly as possible so as not to delay publication elsewhere. For other manuscripts, the Editors and Associate Editors will invite two or more referees who are active in the field to review the manuscript. The reviewers act only in an advisory capacity, and the final decision is the responsibility of the Editors and Associate Editors. The reviewers are asked to comment not only on the scientific content but also on the manuscript’s suitability for Journal of Electrochemistry. The manuscript that passes the initial evaluation will be sent to review by at least two external double-blind reviewers who have areas of expertise related to the submitted manuscripts. In general, reviewers return comments in 28 days. The comments will be sent to the authors regardless of whether the manuscript is accepted or not.
Revised manuscripts
After the peer review, if a revision is requested for a potentially acceptable manuscript, the authors should upload the revised manuscript via the Journal website as soon as possible. The revision deadlines for Reviews, Perspective, Articles are as follows.
Minor revisions: 14 days
Major revisions: 21 days
Reject and resubmit: 90 days
Owing to their shorter format and higher degree of imperativeness, the revision deadlines for Communications and Protocal are as follows:
Minor revisions: 10 days
Major revisions: 15 days
Reject and resubmit: 45 days
If a revised manuscript is returned late and after a period that exceeds the average publication time, the manuscript will be given a new queue date for publication. Revised papers should be accompanied by a point-by-point response to all the comments made by the reviewers. All revised contents in the manuscript should be underlined to facilitate further review. Revised manuscripts are sometimes sent back to the original reviewers, who are asked to comment on the revisions. If only minor revisions are involved, the Editor will examine the revised manuscript in light of the recommendations of the reviewers without seeking further opinions. The final decision to accept or reject a paper will be made by the Editorial Board and the Editorial Office.
