Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
Abai Chemical Sciences
Make a new submission

REVIEW POLICY

The journal "ABAI CHEMICAL SCIENCES" applies a double-blind peer review procedure, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous at all stages of the manuscript review process. The peer review process is conducted in accordance with the principles of publication ethics and the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Manuscripts are submitted through the journal's electronic editorial and publishing system . All materials must comply with the journal's requirements regarding formatting, article structure, and publication ethics.

At the initial stage, the editorial board conducts a technical and scientific evaluation of the manuscript, which includes checking its compliance with the journal's scope, formatting requirements, text originality, and the absence of plagiarism, duplicate publications, or other violations of publication ethics. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be rejected without being sent for peer review.

Manuscripts that successfully pass the preliminary check are sent to at least two independent reviewers who possess scientific expertise in the relevant field of research. Upon receiving an invitation, the reviewer assesses the feasibility of participating in the peer review, taking into account their own expertise, the absence of any conflict of interest, and their professional workload. The decision to accept or decline is made within 7 days from the date of receiving the invitation. In case of acceptance, the reviewer is given up to 21 days to prepare an expert opinion. If necessary, the review period may be extended by agreement with the editorial board. In case of refusal, the editorial board appoints a new expert. 

The appointment of reviewers is carried out by the editorial board through the electronic system, considering their scientific specialization, academic qualifications, publication activity, and research interests. To select experts, a thematic search system is used, which generates a list of specialists matching the profile of the submitted manuscript.

Reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality regarding the received materials and are not entitled to use the information, ideas, data, or research results contained in the manuscript for personal, scientific, or other purposes prior to the official publication of the work. Reviewers are obliged to immediately notify the editorial board of any potential conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of the expert opinion.

During the peer review process, the manuscript must not be disclosed to third parties without the consent of the editorial board. The use of generative artificial intelligence systems and other external services that involve uploading the full text of the manuscript or its substantial fragments is permitted only with the permission of the editorial board and in compliance with confidentiality requirements.

After gaining access to the manuscript, the reviewer sequentially answers the structured questions of the QUESTIONNAIRE, concerning the scientific significance, relevance, methodological correctness, and quality of the submitted material. The questionnaire includes standardized fields where the reviewer notes the compliance of the work with the publication's profile, evaluates the level of scientific novelty, the completeness of the topic disclosure, the validity of the conclusions, and the correctness of the sources used. The review must be objective, reasoned, constructive, and based solely on scientific criteria. Personal criticism of the authors, discriminatory statements, and unsubstantiated evaluations are unacceptable. Individual sections of the questionnaire are intended for providing comments, recommendations for revision, as well as for justifying the final expert decision. Filling out the questionnaire is carried out in accordance with the established requirements of the editorial board and is a mandatory step in the review process. Upon completion, the reviewer generates a final conclusion, which is automatically transmitted to the editorial board through the system for making one of the following decisions:

- accept the article for publication;

- accept the article after revisions;

- send the article for re-review;

- reject the article.

If the manuscript requires revision, the reviewers' comments are sent to the author. Authors are required to submit the revised version of the article and a response to the reviewers' comments within the established timeframe. For minor revisions, the deadline for submitting the corrected manuscript is up to 21 calendar days.

The revised version of the article may be sent for peer review again. Authors have the right to submit a reasoned appeal against the editorial decision. Appeals are considered by the editorial board in accordance with the established procedure.

In case of refusal to revise, the author must notify the editorial board. If the revised manuscript is not submitted within the established timeframe and no notification of refusal is received, the article is withdrawn from consideration, and a corresponding notification is sent to the author.

The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board based on the reviewers' recommendations and the results of the editorial evaluation. After a decision is made, the author is notified of the outcome of the review. If the manuscript is rejected, a reasoned refusal is sent to the author.

Reviews, correspondence with authors, and other materials related to the expert evaluation process of the manuscript are stored by the editorial board in electronic form for at least five years from the date the final decision on the article is made.