Peer Review Policy

Innovation of Chemistry & Materials for Sustainability (ICMS) is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity, research ethics, and publication quality. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a rigorous review and evaluation process within the Open Journal Systems (OJS-PKP) platform to ensure originality, accuracy, and relevance to the journal’s scope and objectives.

Single-Blind Peer Review Process

The journal follows a Single-Blind Peer Review system in which reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities, but authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities. This model promotes objectivity in assessment while allowing reviewers to consider the work within its proper research context.

Number of Reviewers

Each manuscript is evaluated by a minimum of two (2) independent expert reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise. Additional reviewers may be invited when deemed necessary by the Handling Editor to ensure balanced, thorough, and impartial evaluation.

Review Timeline

The standard review period is approximately four to five (4-5) weeks from the date of assignment. Reviewers are requested to submit their reports within this timeframe to maintain timely communication with authors and expedite the publication process

Reviewer Reports and Anonymity

All reviewer comments and recommendations are communicated to authors anonymously through the OJS system.

Authors receive detailed and constructive feedback aimed at improving the scientific and editorial quality of their manuscripts. Reviewer identities remain strictly confidential, and disclosure is prohibited unless explicitly authorized by the editorial office under exceptional circumstances.

Plagiarism and Research Integrity

ICMS maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or other forms of research misconduct. All submissions are screened using advanced plagiarism detection software integrated with Crossref Similarity Check prior to peer review.

If potential plagiarism or unethical practice is identified:

  • The manuscript will be placed on hold for an internal investigation by the editorial board.
  • Authors will be notified of the concern and provided an opportunity to respond.
  • Confirmed cases of plagiarism will result in immediate rejection and may be reported to the relevant institution(s) or funding bodies, consistent with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.

Editorial Decision

Following completion of the peer-review process, the Handling Editor evaluates the reviewers’ reports and makes the editorial decision based on the scientific quality, originality, technical soundness, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal scope. Authors are notified of the decision along with reviewers’ comments: Possible editorial decisions include:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Revision and Resubmission

Authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in response to reviewer comments and submit a detailed response to reviewers. Revised manuscripts may be subject to further review.

Conflicts of Interest

All participants in the peer review and publication process, including authors, reviewers, and editors, must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their objectivity, judgment, or professional responsibilities. Conflicts of interest may include financial, institutional, personal, academic, or professional relationships.

  • Authors must provide a conflict of interest statement at the time of manuscript submission.
  • Reviewers who identify a potential conflict of interest must immediately decline the review invitation or inform the editorial office.
  • Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists. Such manuscripts will be reassigned to another qualified editor.
  • The Handling Editor is responsible for reviewing disclosed conflicts and ensuring that they are appropriately managed during the peer review and editorial process.
  • All conflict of interest disclosures is handled confidentially to maintain transparency, fairness, and the integrity of the publication process.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not disclose or use any unpublished information for personal advantage.

Ethical Oversight

IICMS follows the principles and best practices of the COPE in addressing publication ethics matters, including plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication, falsification, inappropriate authorship attribution, citation manipulation, and image manipulation.

Where applicable, authors must ensure that their research complies with relevant institutional, national, and international ethical standards.

Any ethical concerns identified before or after publication may result in editorial actions including manuscript rejection, publication correction, expression of concern, or retraction.

Final Authority over Editorial Decisions

The Editor-in-Chief oversees the overall editorial process and publication ethics of the journal.
Editor-in-Chief: Prof. Susanta Banerjee Email: eic-icms@insuf.org; susanta@matsc.iitkgp.ac.in

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

Authors must unveil the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools or AI-assisted technologies in the preparation of manuscripts, including text generation, image creation, data analysis, or language editing.

AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors, as they cannot take responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work.

Authors remain fully responsible for all content submitted to the journal, including any material generated or assisted by AI tools.

Policy Updates

This policy may be updated periodically to ensure alignment with international best practices in scholarly publishing.