Editorial Policies

Research Articles, Review Articles, and Short Communications that pass initial editorial screening undergo single-blind external peer review. Each manuscript sent for external review is normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter reviewers before a final editorial decision is made. Reviewers assess originality, methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, ethical compliance, data reliability, and contribution to the field. The Editor-in-Chief and handling editors reach the final decision after considering the reviewer reports.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers during submission; however, suggested reviewers are not guaranteed to be invited, and the final selection of reviewers remains entirely at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor. Editors avoid reviewers with known conflicts of interest.

Supplementary files, datasets, figures, tables, crystallographic information files, spectra, and other supporting materials may be evaluated as part of peer review when they are necessary to assess the validity, reproducibility, or interpretation of the manuscript.

Peer-review reports are not published, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors under the journal's single-blind review model, unless a reviewer explicitly agrees to be identified in editorial correspondence where appropriate.

Editorials are invited or approved by the Editor-in-Chief and are subject to editorial review. They do not normally undergo external peer review unless they contain substantive original research claims, data, or analyses for which the Editor-in-Chief determines that independent external assessment is appropriate. Corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, announcements, and other non-research notices are handled editorially and do not normally undergo external peer review.

Editorial decisions are made independently of any commercial, institutional, governmental, or sponsor interest. The Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board retain sole authority over manuscript evaluation and all decisions regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection.

Manuscripts proceed through an initial editorial screening, reviewer assignment, peer review, and a final editorial decision. Final decisions may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Authors are notified of the decision and, where applicable, receive the reviewers’ comments and recommendations.

Editors are responsible for the fair, objective, and timely handling of manuscripts, maintaining confidentiality throughout the review process, disclosing any conflicts of interest, and ensuring that editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit, scientific quality, and ethical considerations.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations, maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and associated review materials, disclose any conflicts of interest, and notify the editors of any suspected ethical concerns, including plagiarism, data manipulation, duplicate publication, or other forms of research misconduct.

Authors are responsible for ensuring the originality of their work, accurately reporting all data, methods, and results, appropriately citing the work of others, disclosing any conflicts of interest, and confirming that all listed authors meet the journal’s authorship criteria and have approved the submitted version of the manuscript.

Errors identified after publication that do not compromise the validity, reliability, or overall conclusions of the work are addressed through a formal Correction (Erratum or Corrigendum) notice, which is permanently linked to the original article. See our Publication Policies  page for the full procedure.

Articles found to contain serious errors, research misconduct, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or duplicate publication may be retracted in accordance with COPE guidelines. A formal Retraction Notice will remain permanently linked to the original article and will clearly state the reason for the retraction.

When an allegation, irregularity, or potential breach of publication ethics is under investigation but has not yet been resolved, the journal may issue a public Expression of Concern pending the outcome of that investigation. The notice will remain linked to the original article until a final determination is made.

The journal's editorial and publication policies are informed by principles and relevant ethical guidance published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the American Chemical Society (ACS), and the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI). This guidance supports the journal's approach to research integrity, publication ethics, and responsible scholarly communication.

Editors, editorial board members, and reviewers must not disclose any information regarding a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, authorized reviewers, editorial advisers, or the publisher’s staff involved in the editorial process, prior to publication. Manuscripts and associated review materials are treated as confidential documents throughout the peer-review process.

Manuscripts are evaluated solely on the basis of their academic and scientific merit. Editorial and peer-review decisions are made without discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, age, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or geographic origin. Editors and reviewers are also expected to avoid any commercial, financial, institutional, or personal conflict of interest that could compromise the objectivity of the evaluation process.