Peer Review Policy

The journal “Chemistry, Physics and Technology of Surface” applies a rigorous peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, scientific significance, and integrity of published research.

The journal adheres to internationally recognized standards of editorial ethics and peer review transparency, including the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 

Type of Peer Review

The journal uses a single-blind peer review system.

Under this review model:

  • Reviewers know the authors, authors are not informed about the identities of reviewers.

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers (external reviewers only). In cases of disagreement between the author and the reviewer, the Editorial Board may decide to submit the manuscript for additional review by another reviewer.

Reviewers are selected from an international pool of independent experts in relevant scientific fields (authors and readers, scientists competent in the journal’s subject areas). Reviewers provide their services voluntarily without financial compensation.

The standard review period is two weeks from the date the reviewer agrees to conduct the review. The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editorial Board.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are reviewed confidentially.

 

Initial Editorial Evaluation

Each submitted manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editorial Office and the Editor-in-Chief to determine whether the manuscript:

  • fits within the scope of the journal;
  • meets scientific and editorial standards;
  • complies with the journal’s ethical requirements;
  • follows the author guidelines and formatting requirements.

At this stage, manuscripts may be rejected without external review if they:

  • fall outside the journal’s scope;
  • are scientifically insufficient;
  • are poorly prepared;
  • contain ethical concerns or plagiarism.

 

Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation are sent to independent expert reviewers with appropriate scientific expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • academic qualifications;
  • publication experience;
  • subject expertise;
  • absence of conflicts of interest.

The Editorial Board strives to avoid conflicts of interest throughout the review process.

 

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations;
  • maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts;
  • identify relevant published work not cited by the authors;
  • report possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, or ethical concerns;
  • complete reviews within the established deadlines;
  • decline review invitations if a conflict of interest exists.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through the peer review process for personal advantage.

 

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to:

  • originality and novelty;
  • scientific significance;
  • methodological accuracy;
  • validity of data and conclusions;
  • clarity of presentation;
  • relevance to the journal’s scope;
  • adequacy of references and citations;
  • compliance with ethical standards.

Reviewers provide recommendations including:

  • acceptance;
  • minor revisions;
  • major revisions;
  • article rejection.

 

Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on:

  • reviewers’ reports;
  • scientific quality of the manuscript;
  • compliance with editorial and ethical standards.

Possible editorial decisions include:

  • acceptance of the manuscript;
  • acceptance with minor revisions;
  • reconsideration after major revisions;
  • rejection of the manuscript.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject manuscripts at any stage of the review process.

 

Revision Process

Authors receiving reviewers’ comments are expected to:

  • revise the manuscript carefully;
  • respond to all reviewer comments point-by-point;
  • submit revised files within the specified deadline.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

 

Confidentiality

All manuscripts and related correspondence are treated as confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose information regarding submitted manuscripts to anyone except individuals directly involved in the editorial and peer review process.

 

Conflict of Interest

Editors, reviewers, and authors must disclose any conflicts of interest that could influence the evaluation or interpretation of a manuscript.

Reviewers with conflicts of interest must decline participation in the review process.

 

Ethical Oversight

The journal takes publication ethics seriously and follows COPE guidelines in cases involving:

  • plagiarism;
  • duplicate publication;
  • fabricated or falsified data;
  • authorship disputes;
  • unethical research practices;
  • reviewer manipulation.

Manuscripts may be screened using plagiarism detection software such as StrikePlagiarism (https://strikeplagiarism.com/ ), which identifies similarity levels, sources used, and partial text overlap.

 

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned written explanation to the Editorial Office.

Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief and, if necessary, additional independent reviewers.

The journal reserves the right to make the final editorial decision.

 

Policy Updates

The Editorial Board may revise this policy in accordance with developments in international peer review standards and publication ethics practices.

 

Last updated: 2026