1. Review Guidelines
1. The journal's rejection rate is approximately 50% and employs a double-blind peer review process. All manuscripts are reviewed by at least two experts. If the opinions of the two reviewers conflict, a third expert will be invited to arbitrate.
2. Reviewers are expected to return their evaluations within 15 days. If not, the system will send reminder emails periodically. If a reviewer fails to submit their review within 30 days, the editorial office will contact the reviewer and request prompt feedback. If the reviewer informs the editorial office that they are unable to review the manuscript for any reason, the editorial office will select a new reviewer to handle the evaluation.
3. If a reviewer is unable to review the manuscript in a timely manner for any reason, they should contact the editorial office promptly. The editorial office will then select a new reviewer to handle the evaluation.
4. Reviewers will evaluate the manuscript comprehensively from several aspects (including but not limited to) its scientific quality, innovation, practicality, and reproducibility, and determine whether it is suitable for publication in Paint & Coatings Industry.
1） The manuscript should demonstrate a relatively high academic level and contain a certain degree of innovation. It should not resemble or be of a lower standard than previously published papers, either domestically or internationally.
2） The manuscript should not contain political errors or confidentiality issues.
3） The abstract should be clear and concise, providing readers with a comprehensive understanding of the research objective, methods, results, and conclusions. The introduction should be brief yet informative, outlining the research background and summarizing relevant studies both domestically and internationally, thereby highlighting the research method and its innovation.
4） The manuscript's content, figures, tables, formulas, references, and English abstract should be presented using professional terminology that is precise, appropriate, and coherent. Calculation methods and processes, experimental conditions, and data should be rigorous, reasonable, and reproducible. Results analysis should be supported by appropriate references, with in-depth and well-considered interpretations. The content should be consistent throughout the manuscript without contradictions.
5） If reviewers believe that the manuscript does not meet the publication standards of this journal, please provide reasons to facilitate further processing.
6） If reviewers believe that the manuscript meets the publication standards of this journal, please specify the necessary revisions and additions and provide detailed suggestions.
2. Review and Publication Process
The journal's review process is as follows: After an author's submission is successful, the editor-in-chief will first conduct a preliminary review of the manuscript. Manuscripts that lack originality, have significant scientific or technical flaws, provide no valuable information, or fall outside the journal's scope will be rejected. Manuscripts that pass the preliminary review will be sent by the responsible editor to external experts for peer review. The journal employs a double-blind review system. The manuscript will be sent to two independent reviewers for evaluation. If the two reviewers have conflicting opinions, a third expert will be invited to arbitrate. For manuscripts requiring revisions after peer review, the author must respond to each of the reviewers' comments point by point and submit the revised version on time. Once the manuscript passes peer review, the editor-in-chief will make the final decision on whether the article can be published and is responsible for all content in the journal. For specific procedures, please refer to the diagram below.
Normally, feedback on manuscript processing results is provided within 1 to 2 months. However, if a manuscript requires multiple rounds of revision and re-review due to quality issues, the review cycle may be extended.
3. Academic Misconduct Detection
All submitted manuscripts will be checked for plagiarism using the "Academic Misconduct Literature Check System (AMLC)" provided by CNKI. Manuscripts with a similarity rate exceeding 20% (excluding references) will be directly rejected. The journal strictly prohibits duplicate submissions, plagiarism, and any other form of academic misconduct. If any such behavior is identified, the editorial office will reject the manuscript immediately. Furthermore, if academic misconduct is discovered after publication, the editorial office will retract the article. All resulting consequences shall be borne and resolved by the authors.
4. Supplements, Special Issues, and Special Columns
The above review process also applies to submissions for supplements, special issues, and special columns. Manuscripts submitted for supplements, special issues, or special columns will undergo the same review and editorial process as regular submissions, and the final decision on acceptance will be made by the editors-in-chief. The editor-in-chief is responsible for the entire content of the journal, including supplements, special issues, and special columns. When organizing supplements or special issues, the editorial office may invite authoritative experts in the field to serve as guest editors. The responsibilities of guest editors include proposing themes, soliciting manuscripts, organizing peer reviews, and addressing any issues that arise during the publication process. The work of guest editors will be supervised by the editor-in-chief to ensure the fairness of the manuscript review process.
5. Internal Submissions
Submissions by Editorial Board Members (EBMs) / Editors / Guest Editors must adhere to all journal review and editorial procedures when submitting manuscripts. They shall not participate in the review, editorial work, or acceptance decisions for articles authored by themselves, their family members, or colleagues. Peer review must ensure independence from the relevant authors, editors, and their research groups.
