Peer Review Policy

At Fuel Cells Bulletin Journal, we are committed to ensuring the highest quality and integrity of the research we publish. To achieve this, we employ a rigorous peer review process that facilitates a thorough and impartial evaluation of submitted manuscripts. Our peer review policy is designed to uphold scientific excellence and foster transparency throughout the review process.

1. Peer Review Process

Double-Blind Review:

  • We use a double-blind peer review process, where both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. This approach helps to eliminate bias and ensures a fair evaluation of the manuscript based on its scientific merit.

Reviewer Selection:

  • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the relevant field of study. Our editorial team carefully matches reviewers with the manuscript’s subject matter to ensure that feedback is informed and constructive.

Review Criteria:

  • Manuscripts are evaluated on the following criteria:
    • Originality: The novelty and significance of the research.
    • Scientific Quality: The rigor of the methodology, analysis, and data interpretation.
    • Relevance: The relevance of the research to the journal’s scope and to the field of fuel cell technology.
    • Clarity: The clarity and coherence of the writing, including organization, presentation of results, and conclusions.

Review Process:

  • Upon submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial team to determine its suitability for peer review.
  • If deemed suitable, the manuscript is sent to two or more independent reviewers who provide feedback and recommendations.
  • Reviewers are asked to provide detailed comments to help authors improve their work. Recommendations may include acceptance, minor or major revisions, or rejection.

2. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Impartiality:

  • Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, without bias or personal conflict of interest.

Confidentiality:

  • All information related to the manuscript and the review process must be kept confidential. Reviewers should not disclose details or use the information for personal gain.

Constructive Feedback:

  • Reviewers should provide constructive feedback that helps authors enhance their manuscript. Comments should be specific, respectful, and aimed at improving the quality of the research.

Conflict of Interest:

  • Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may affect their impartiality. If a conflict arises, they should recuse themselves from the review process.

3. Responsibilities of Authors

Transparency:

  • Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and provide accurate, complete information about their research.

Response to Reviewers:

  • Authors are required to address all reviewer comments and suggestions thoroughly. Revised manuscripts should be resubmitted along with a detailed response to reviewers’ feedback.

Ethical Compliance:

  • Authors must ensure that their research complies with ethical standards, including obtaining necessary approvals for human and animal research.

4. Editorial Decision

Decision Making:

  • Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editorial team makes a decision on the manuscript. Decisions may include acceptance, minor or major revisions, or rejection.
  • The editorial decision is final. Authors will receive detailed feedback from reviewers to guide any necessary revisions.

Revisions:

  • Authors may be asked to revise their manuscript based on reviewer feedback. Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated to ensure that all concerns have been addressed satisfactorily.

5. Confidentiality and Integrity

Confidentiality:

  • All aspects of the peer review process, including reviewer identities and manuscript details, are kept confidential. Unauthorized disclosure of information is strictly prohibited.

Integrity:

  • The integrity of the peer review process is paramount. We take all necessary measures to prevent and address any potential breaches of ethical standards.

6. Reporting Misconduct

Misconduct Reporting:

  • Any concerns or suspicions of research misconduct, including plagiarism or data manipulation, should be reported to the journal’s editorial office. All reports will be investigated thoroughly, and appropriate actions will be taken as necessary.

Contact Information: For questions regarding the peer review process or to report any issues, please contact editor@fuelcellsbulletin.org