Peer Review Policy

Journal: Joining and Corrosion Protection (JCP)

Policy Version: 1.0

Effective Date: June 2026

1. Overview

Joining and Corrosion Protection (JCP) is committed to ensuring the quality, integrity, and scientific value of all published research through a rigorous and transparent peer review process.

All submissions undergo editorial screening and independent peer review before publication decisions are made.

The journal operates a single-blind peer review system.

2. Peer Review Model

2.1 Single-Blind Peer Review

Under the single-blind review model:

• Reviewers know the identities of the authors.
• Authors do not know the identities of reviewers.
• Reviewer identities remain confidential throughout the review process unless a reviewer voluntarily chooses to disclose their identity.

This model supports objective evaluation while protecting reviewers from potential conflicts or external pressures.

3. Editorial Workflow

All manuscripts follow the workflow below:

Step 1 – Technical Assessment

The Editorial Office conducts an initial review to verify:

• completeness of submission files;
• compliance with journal formatting requirements;
• plagiarism screening;
• ethical declarations and required statements.

Step 2 – Associate Editor Assessment

An Associate Editor performs an initial academic assessment to evaluate:

• relevance to the journal scope;
• scientific quality;
• novelty and significance;
• suitability for external review.

Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they are clearly outside the journal scope or do not meet minimum quality standards.

Step 3 – External Peer Review

Suitable manuscripts are sent to independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject matter.

Step 4 – Deputy Editor Evaluation

The Deputy Editor evaluates reviewer reports, author responses, and manuscript revisions before making an editorial recommendation.

Step 5 – Final Decision

The final publication decision is made by the Deputy Editor under the supervision of the Editor-in-Chief.

4. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on:

• subject expertise;
• publication record;
• professional experience;
• absence of conflicts of interest;
• prior review performance where applicable.

Potential reviewers may be identified through:

• Editorial Board recommendations;
• literature databases;
• author-suggested reviewers (subject to independent verification);
• professional networks and academic communities.

The journal reserves the right to accept or reject any reviewer recommendation.

5. Number of Reviewers

5.1 Standard Requirement

JCP normally requires at least two independent review reports before a publication decision is made.

5.2 Additional Reviewers

Additional reviewers may be invited when:

• reviewer recommendations conflict substantially;
• specialist expertise is required;
• ethical or methodological concerns arise.

The journal reserves the right to seek additional reviews at any stage of the evaluation process.

6. Reviewer Timelines

The journal aims to maintain an efficient review process.

These timeframes are targets rather than guarantees and may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.

7. Editorial Decisions

Possible editorial decisions include:

Reject

The manuscript is not suitable for publication.

Major Revision

Substantial scientific, methodological, or presentation improvements are required.

Minor Revision

Limited revisions are required before acceptance can be considered.

Accept

The manuscript is accepted for publication.

8. Editorial Authority

Editorial decisions are based on:

• scientific merit;
• originality;
• methodological rigor;
• relevance to the journal scope;
• ethical compliance.

Editors are not required to follow reviewer recommendations automatically.

The Deputy Editor may:

• request additional reviews;
• request further revisions;
• override reviewer recommendations when justified;
• reject manuscripts despite positive reviews if significant ethical or scientific concerns are identified.

The Editor-in-Chief retains ultimate responsibility for editorial oversight.

9. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• maintain confidentiality;
• provide objective and constructive assessments;
• disclose conflicts of interest;
• evaluate manuscripts fairly and professionally;
• submit reviews within a reasonable timeframe.

Reviewers should focus on scientific content and avoid personal criticism of authors.

10. Review Quality Standards

Review reports should address:

• originality and significance;
• methodology and reproducibility;
• interpretation of results;
• clarity of presentation;
• adequacy of references;
• ethical considerations where applicable.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed comments that assist authors in improving their work.

11. Confidentiality and Ethics

All manuscripts under review are confidential documents.

Reviewers and editors must not:

• distribute manuscripts to third parties;
• use unpublished information for personal benefit;
• disclose reviewer identities;
• upload manuscript content to public or unsecured AI systems.

All participants are expected to comply with the journal's Publication Ethics Policy and AI Policy.

12. Appeals

Authors who believe a decision was based on a significant factual or procedural error may submit a written appeal to the Editorial Office within 30 days of the decision.

Appeals will be reviewed by the Deputy Editor and, where appropriate, the Editor-in-Chief.

The journal's decision following appeal review is final.

13. Reviewer Recognition

JCP values the contributions of peer reviewers.

The journal may provide:

• reviewer certificates;
• annual reviewer recognition awards;
• consideration for Editorial Board appointments;
• acknowledgement of reviewer contributions where appropriate and permitted.

14. Policy Review

This policy may be updated periodically to reflect developments in publication ethics, peer review practices, and scholarly publishing standards.

The most recent version will be maintained on the journal website.