Publication in Journal of Research and Education Chemistry (JREC) is based on the scientific validity, originality, methodological rigor, clarity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts to the journal's aims and scope. Editors and peer reviewers assess the quality of research in chemistry, chemistry education, and related fields, including its theoretical contributions, methodological soundness, and implications for scientific practice or chemistry teaching and learning. JREC acknowledges the time, expertise, and constructive feedback provided by its reviewers.

The editor conducts an initial evaluation of each submitted manuscript, normally within two weeks of submission. Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they lack sufficient originality, contain serious scientific or methodological flaws, do not adequately address relevant research questions, or fall outside the journal's aims and scope. For chemistry research, the initial assessment may consider the appropriateness of experimental or computational approaches and the reliability of the reported evidence. For chemistry education research, it may consider the suitability of the research design, instruments, data analysis, and educational context. Manuscripts that meet the initial requirements are forwarded to expert reviewers for further evaluation. The peer-review process generally takes up to eight weeks, although the actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the revision process.

JREC applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers selected by the editor based on their expertise and relevance to the manuscript's subject. Reviewers may have expertise in areas such as chemistry, chemical sciences, chemistry education, science education, or relevant research methodologies. If the reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, an additional reviewer may be invited to support the editorial decision.

Reviewers are asked to assess whether the manuscript:

• Demonstrates originality, establishes a clear research problem, and identifies a meaningful gap in the relevant literature.
• Uses appropriate, rigorous, and scientifically sound research methods, including suitable experimental procedures, analytical techniques, computational approaches, or educational research designs, as applicable.
• Reports data, calculations, chemical structures, experimental procedures, instruments, and analytical results accurately and transparently, where relevant.
• For chemistry education research, uses appropriate theoretical frameworks, learning assessments, research instruments, and data analysis methods.
• Complies with relevant research ethics, laboratory safety, human-participant protection, and publication ethics requirements, as applicable.
• Presents results clearly and draws conclusions that are supported by the evidence.
• Engages appropriately with relevant literature and accurately cites previous research.
• Explains the scientific, methodological, or educational significance of the findings and communicates arguments coherently.

Note: Reviewers evaluate the scholarly quality of the manuscript and are not responsible for copyediting or correcting the language. Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscripts meet JREC's language, formatting, and presentation requirements.

Manuscripts submitted to JREC are treated as confidential documents throughout the editorial and peer-review process. Editors and reviewers must not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished information from submitted manuscripts for personal, professional, or other purposes without appropriate authorization. This requirement also applies to unpublished experimental results, chemical formulations, research data, educational assessment materials, and other confidential research information. Review reports and editorial communications must be handled confidentially. Any consultation with another expert must be authorized by the editor and conducted in a manner that preserves confidentiality.

Reviewers and editors must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their impartiality. A reviewer who identifies a relevant conflict of interest must inform the editor and decline the review when impartial evaluation cannot be ensured. Editors must arrange for an appropriate alternative editor or reviewer when necessary. Conflicts may arise from personal relationships, institutional affiliations, research collaborations, financial interests, professional competition, or other circumstances that could affect impartial judgment. Further details are provided in JREC's Conflict of Interest Policy.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, evidence-based, respectful, and constructive assessments. Reviews must focus on the scholarly merits of the manuscript and must not contain discriminatory, offensive, or personal remarks. Reviewers must not misuse privileged information, appropriate unpublished ideas, request citations solely to increase their own citation counts, or demand unnecessary experiments or analyses unrelated to the research objectives. Reviewers should assess the validity of the methods, the adequacy of evidence, and the interpretation of findings within their area of expertise. Any suspected research misconduct, plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, or other ethical concern should be reported confidentially to the editor, who will assess the matter in accordance with JREC's publication ethics policies.

Reviewers provide recommendations to the editor but do not make the final publication decision. The editor evaluates the reviewers' reports, the manuscript's scientific merit, methodological quality, and relevance to JREC's aims and scope. The editor may consult the editorial board or seek an additional independent assessment when necessary. Based on the available assessments, the editor may decide to accept the manuscript, request minor or major revisions, or reject it. The editor is responsible for the final decision and must ensure that decisions are based on scholarly merit, ethical standards, and the journal's editorial policies.

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant procedural error, a factual misunderstanding, or an incorrect interpretation of the manuscript may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office. Appeals must clearly explain the grounds for reconsideration and provide supporting evidence where appropriate. Disagreement with a decision alone, without specific and substantiated grounds, may not be sufficient for reconsideration. The editor will assess the appeal and may seek advice from an independent editorial representative or additional expert when necessary. The outcome of the appeal will be communicated to the authors. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance of the manuscript.

If concerns arise regarding plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication or falsification, authorship, research ethics, laboratory safety, inappropriate image manipulation, or other potential publication misconduct, the editor will assess the available information and take appropriate action in accordance with JREC's publication ethics and research misconduct policies. Where necessary, the editor may request clarification or supporting documentation from the authors, consult relevant institutional authorities, or seek independent expert advice. For chemistry-related manuscripts, additional clarification may be requested concerning experimental procedures, data provenance, analytical results, chemical materials, or research safety. For chemistry education studies, the editor may examine whether appropriate ethical approval and safeguards for research participants were in place. All concerns will be handled fairly and confidentially.

Journal of Research and Education Chemistry (JREC) | Published by UIR Press