Tailored for the Egyptian Journal of Chemical Engineering (EJChE), inspired by best practices from similar Egyptian academic journals and general scholarly publishing standards. This framework ensures rigor, transparency, and timeliness-key pillars of a robust peer review process.

1. Initial Submission & Editorial Triage

• Compliance Check (Desk Evaluation):

Upon submission, the editorial office performs a rapid initial check to ensure the manuscript aligns with the journal’s scope, formatting guidelines, and basic ethical standards-such as originality and language quality. Manuscripts failing to meet these basic criteria may receive a desk rejection to streamline processing-similar to the Egyptian Journal of Chemistry procedure.

 

• Assignment to Section Editor:

Suitable manuscripts are forwarded to a relevant section editor, who conducts a deeper evaluation. If the manuscript has fundamental flaws (e.g. poor novelty or methodological issues), the section editor may recommend rejection without external peer review. Otherwise, the manuscript proceeds to peer review.

2. Peer Review – Double-Blind System

• Double-Blind Review:

Review should follow a double-blind model where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous, effectively reducing bias based on author identity or institution. This practice is already preferred by related journals like the Egyptian Journal of Chemistry.

 

• Reviewer Selection:

The section editor selects at least two qualified, independent reviewers, ideally with expertise directly relevant to the paper’s topic. Reviewer selection can be guided by publication records, academic networks, or databases. For example, the Egyptian Sugar Journal and Egyptian Journal of Pure and Applied Science adopt a minimum of two reviewers from both national and international communities.

• Review Timelines:
• Reviewer Invitation Response: Reviewers are given up to 10 days to accept or decline the invitation.
• Reviewing Time Frame: Once accepted, reviewers should submit their evaluation within 4–6 weeks, ensuring timely feedback.

 

3. Editor Decision & Communication

• Date of Decision:
  After peer review, the section editor evaluates the reviewers’ feedback and recommends one of the following:
• Accept as is (rare)
• Accept with minor revisions
• Revise and resubmit (major revisions)
• Reject

The editor-in-chief then issues the final decision to the authors, accompanied by reviewers’ anonymized comments and suggestions.

4. Revisions & Resubmission

• Revision Period:
  Authors granted the opportunity to revise should have 4–6 weeks (e.g., 6 weeks as per the Egyptian Journal of Chemistry) to submit their revised version, addressing all reviewer comments thoroughly.

• Resubmission Handling:

If revisions are submitted, the manuscript may return to the same reviewers, go to a new reviewer, or be evaluated only by the section editor depending on the extent of changes and editorial discretion.

5. Final Acceptance & Production

• Acceptance & Production Workflow:

Once a manuscript passes review, it enters production-undergoing copyediting, typesetting, proofreading, and formatting before publication. Authors receive proofs for approval. This mirrors broader academic publishing standards.

6. Ethical Standards & Responsibilities

• Reviewer Ethics:

Reviewers must adhere to ethical norms-maintaining confidentiality, avoiding conflicts of interest, providing constructive feedback, and responding within the agreed timeframe.

 

 

• Editorial Responsibility:

Editors should uphold integrity throughout the process, managing delays, overseeing fair evaluations, and addressing post-publication concerns such as corrections or retractions.

 

 

Summarized Workflow Overview

Phase	Action
1. Submission	Desk check by editorial office for scope, formatting, ethics
2. Triage	Section editor evaluates; either rejects or forwards to review
3. Peer Review	Double-blind review by ≥2 external reviewers
4. Decision	Section editor recommends; final decision by editor-in-chief
5. Revisions	Authors revise within 4–6 weeks, then resubmit
6. Acceptance	Final acceptance followed by production steps
7. Ethical Oversight	Continuous monitoring of integrity, responsiveness, and corrections

Why This Framework Works for EJChE:

• Maintains objectivity through double-blind review and editorial independence.
• Promotes quality by involving expert external reviewers and structured editorial oversight.
• Speeds up publication with clearly defined timelines.
• Aligns with regional norms as seen in comparable Egyptian journals, ensuring coherence and reliability.
• Upholds ethical integrity in all stages of publishing.