The peer-review process at CORROSION
Peer review is essential to the evaluation of scientific research. It is necessary for maintaining quality, progression of the field, accuracy, relevancy, and the appropriateness of the experimental methodology. One of CORROSION’s frequent contributors and reviewers, Prof. Christopher Taylor, provides crucial insights into the importance and integrity of scientific peer review.
After pre-screening, articles are assigned to editors and then reviewers, for a single-blind review. These are some of the questions considered in our review process:
- Does the article provide novel contributions to the understanding of corrosion phenomena and/or suggest ways to control or combat corrosion?
- Is the study design, methodology, and analysis of the experiment suitable? Are the experimental data original, valid, and replicable?
- Is the article written in a clear, concise, and well-organized style with a comprehensive list of references?
- Are there any ethical concerns with the study or article?
Once these considerations have been addressed in the review process and a recommendation has been made to the editors, feedback is given to the author(s) to evaluate and then address in a revised version of the article. This process is repeated until a final recommendation to the authors has been made by the Technical Editor in Chief.
Interested in becoming a reviewer for CORROSION?
If you are interested in becoming a reviewer for CORROSION, please contact the Managing Editor in Chief and send a copy of your CV and your areas of expertise. Reviewers can be researchers, authors, editors, and most are subject matter experts in their field. A good reviewer:
- Responds to the invitation promptly
- Suggests names of alternate reviewers if review is declined
- Follows instructions
- Provides their report on time
- Declares any conflicts of interest
- Provides constructive criticism and well-thought-out comments
- Maintains objectivity and confidentiality
- Provides a clear recommendation to the editor