Peer review (refereeing) process:
The Polyolefins Journal has commitment to peer review process. A high quality reviewing process is a key to a high quality journal. Authors who publish in Polyolefins Journal (POJ) can expect a rigorous peer review process that will result in a paper of scientifically up-to-date and, for POJ readers, reliably high-value scholarly content.
The peer review process followed by Polyolefins Journal is a single-blind process with undisclosed identity of the reviewers. The following diagram shows the entire review process.
After submission of a manuscript, first it is subjected to editorial screening. In this stage, the manuscript is checked for its originality, language and style. If the manuscript does not meet the preliminary restrictions, it will be rejected or returned to the author to be resubmitted.
The accepted manuscript for peer review is sent to the reviewers. The reports from at least two reviewers are considered for decision making by the editorial. When the manuscript needs revision, the author is requested to send a revised version according to the reviewers’ suggestions and comments. The revised version is checked by the editor and then sent to second reviews. The journal editor considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and then arrives at a final decision.
Peer reviewers should indicate if they have a conflict of interest in the material that they are being requested to review. They are asked to decline invitations for peer review where any situations might prevent them producing fair peer review.
Peer reviewers are responsible to review the manuscript within the time specified by the editors.
The reviewers are asked to complete a questioner form in addition to their comment.
Peer reviewers sometimes reveal suspicion of misconduct. If peer reviewers are suspicious of a serious misconduct, (for example, data fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, or plagiarism) they must inform the editors immediately.
Peer reviewers are encouraged to consider ethical issues raised by the research they are reviewing. They should express their views clearly with supporting arguments, with no personal criticism of the authors.
The identification of peer reviewers is concealed from the authors. Peer reviewers are needed to treat submitted material in confidence until it has been published. POJ asks peer reviewers to delete submitted manuscripts after they have reviewed them.