ACS Publisher employs a strict and open peer-review procedure with the goal of maximising quality. Scholars and researchers manage peer review.
We think peer review must be effective, rigorous, and equitable for all parties.
The majority of ACS journals use single-blind peer review with at least two independent reviewers, with the Editor-in-Chief or another academic editor designated by the Editor-in-Chief making the ultimate acceptance or rejection decision. The Editor-in-Chief is in charge of selecting articles for publication. He or she is also accountable for the academic quality of the publication process.
A summary of the editorial process is given in the flowchart below.
The following provides notes on each step.
There are two main steps in the pre-screening stage: an academic editor’s editorial pre-check and a technical pre-check carried out by the Editorial Office.
The technical pre-check will be performed by the journal’s Managing Editor immediately after submission to evaluate:
the manuscript’s overall suitability to the journal, section, or Special Issue;
adherence to high-quality research and ethical guidelines in the manuscript;
rigor requirements to be considered for further evaluation.
The scholarly manager (i.e., the Supervisor in-Boss on account of customary entries will be advised of the accommodation and welcomed to play out a publication pre-check. The academic editor will evaluate the submission’s suitability in relation to the journal’s scope during the editorial pre-check phase, as well as the manuscript’s overall scientific soundness, including the relevance of the references and the correctness of the applied methodology. Academic editors have the option of rejecting the manuscript, requesting revisions prior to peer review, or continuing with peer review and recommending appropriate reviewers.