Peer-Review policy

NextGen Chemical Engineering Journal (NGCEJ) is committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, transparency, and integrity through a rigorous peer review process. The journal follows internationally recognized best practices in scholarly publishing.

1. Type of Peer Review

NGCEJ follows a Double-Blind Peer Review system:

• The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers.

• The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.

• This process ensures impartial, unbiased, and fair evaluation.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo preliminary screening by the Editorial Office to evaluate:

• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope

• Compliance with submission guidelines

• Ethical compliance and declarations

• Plagiarism screening

• Overall academic suitability

Manuscripts failing to meet minimum requirements may be rejected without external review (desk rejection).

3. Reviewer Selection

• Each manuscript is typically reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant field.

• Reviewers are selected based on expertise, experience, and absence of conflicts of interest.

• Editors ensure that reviewers have no personal or professional conflicts with the authors.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

• Originality and novelty

• Scientific rigor and methodology

• Accuracy of data and analysis

• Relevance to chemical engineering

• Clarity of writing and organization

• Proper citation of references

• Ethical compliance

• Reviewers provide constructive comments and recommendations to improve the manuscript.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following:

• Accept without revision

• Minor Revision

• Major Revision

• Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

6. Decision-Making Process

The Editor considers:

• Reviewer comments

• Editorial evaluation

• Journal standards and policies

• The final decision is communicated to the corresponding author along with reviewer feedback.

7. Revision Process

If revision is required:

• Authors must respond to all reviewer comments clearly and systematically.

• Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for re-evaluation.

• Failure to submit revisions within the specified time may result in withdrawal of the manuscript.

8. Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers and editors must not:

• Share manuscript content

• Use unpublished data for personal advantage

• Disclose reviewer or author identities

9. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest and decline review if:

• They have collaborated with the authors recently

• They have financial interests related to the research

• They cannot provide an unbiased evaluation

• Editors also recuse themselves in cases of conflict.

10. Ethical Oversight

If ethical concerns arise during review (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission):

• The editorial team will investigate the matter.

• Authors may be asked for clarification.

• Appropriate action will be taken according to journal policy.