Journal Policy

Journal of Corrosion and Coatings is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, independent, and academically rigorous editorial process. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, technical validity, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal's Aim and Scopes, and contribution to corrosion science, protective coatings, surface engineering, material durability, integrity, and related engineering applications.

1. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently of commercial, financial, institutional, industrial, governmental, or personal interests. The publisher does not determine whether an individual manuscript is accepted or rejected.

Editors assess manuscripts according to scientific quality, originality, technical validity, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, transparency, relevance, and contribution to the fields of corrosion, coatings, surface engineering, materials durability, and integrity.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All submissions undergo initial editorial screening before external peer review. The editorial team evaluates whether a manuscript fits the journal's Aim and Scopes and meets minimum scholarly, technical, ethical, and presentation standards.

Initial screening may include assessment of:

• Relevance to corrosion science, coatings, or surface engineering;
• Originality and significance of the research problem;
• Clarity of objectives and research contribution;
• Appropriateness of experimental, electrochemical, numerical, or analytical methods;
• Quality of validation, interpretation, and discussion;
• Relevance to corrosion protection, integrity, durability, or service life;
• Research ethics and publication integrity; and
• Compliance with manuscript preparation requirements.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, lack sufficient scientific or engineering contribution, or do not meet minimum editorial standards may be declined without external peer review.

3. Peer Review Process

The journal applies a double-anonymous peer review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process.

Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in corrosion science, electrochemistry, protective coatings, surface engineering, materials degradation, corrosion monitoring, integrity, or related disciplines.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, confidential, evidence-based, and technically competent evaluations.

4. Editorial Decision-Making

Reviewer recommendations inform but do not automatically determine the final editorial decision. The responsible editor considers reviewer reports together with the manuscript's scientific merit, technical validity, methodological quality, ethical compliance, transparency, and relevance to the journal.

Editorial decisions may include:

• Accept Submission;
• Minor Revision;
• Major Revision;
• Resubmit for Review; or
• Decline Submission.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance. Final publication decisions remain the responsibility of the editorial team.

5. Conflicts of Interest

Authors, editors, and reviewers must disclose financial, institutional, professional, consulting, commercial, or personal relationships that could reasonably influence or appear to influence the research, peer review, or editorial process.

Potential conflicts may include relationships with coating manufacturers, materials suppliers, corrosion-control companies, engineering contractors, industrial operators, testing laboratories, technology developers, or other organizations directly affected by the research. Editors should transfer responsibility where a relevant conflict exists.

6. Research and Publication Integrity

Journal of Corrosion and Coatings supports internationally recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing and publication-ethics practices informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, duplicate publication, manipulated peer review, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, data misrepresentation, image manipulation, and undisclosed conflicts of interest are not acceptable.

Allegations of research or publication misconduct will be assessed objectively, confidentially, and proportionately based on available evidence.

7. Originality and Plagiarism

Submitted manuscripts may be screened using similarity-detection software. Similarity reports are evaluated contextually and are not judged solely on the basis of a numerical percentage.

Unattributed copying, inappropriate paraphrasing, duplicate submission, redundant publication, or substantial reuse of previously published material may result in rejection or appropriate post-publication action.

8. Artificial Intelligence Use

Artificial intelligence systems, generative AI tools, large language models, or autonomous software agents cannot be listed as authors because they cannot assume responsibility for scholarly content, originality, ethical compliance, or accountability.

Authors remain fully responsible for all AI-assisted content, including writing, coding, calculations, data processing, electrochemical interpretation, corrosion prediction, image analysis, coating classification, modeling, and engineering conclusions.

Substantive use of AI in writing, coding, predictive modeling, corrosion monitoring, failure diagnosis, image analysis, digital twins, literature synthesis, or other research activities should be disclosed where relevant.

Editors and reviewers should not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished industrial data, proprietary formulations, reviewer reports, or editorial correspondence to publicly accessible AI systems where confidentiality, intellectual property, privacy, or data security cannot be assured.

9. Corrosion Data, Testing and Technical Integrity

Research involving electrochemical testing, exposure testing, coating characterization, corrosion monitoring, surface analysis, failure investigation, field measurements, numerical models, industrial data, or laboratory datasets should clearly report relevant methods, conditions, assumptions, uncertainties, and limitations.

Experimental studies should provide sufficient information on material composition, specimen preparation, surface condition, coating thickness, environmental exposure, electrolyte composition, temperature, test duration, instrumentation, calibration, repeatability, and applicable standards or procedures.

Electrochemical studies should clearly describe electrode configuration, reference electrodes, exposed surface area, stabilization procedures, scan rates, frequency ranges, equivalent-circuit assumptions, fitting procedures, and relevant uncertainty where applicable.

Proprietary coating formulations, confidential industrial information, or restricted operational data should be handled in accordance with relevant permissions, confidentiality agreements, legal obligations, and institutional requirements.

10. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal when they believe that a significant factual, methodological, technical, procedural, or ethical issue affected an editorial decision.

Appeals should identify the specific issue being challenged and provide a clear scholarly or technical justification rather than merely expressing disagreement with the editorial outcome.

Complaints concerning editorial conduct, peer review, conflicts of interest, publication ethics, or published content will be considered objectively by an appropriate journal representative.

11. Corrections, Retractions and Post-Publication Actions

Journal of Corrosion and Coatings is committed to preserving the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.

Corrections may be issued when errors affect the accuracy, attribution, interpretation, calculations, figures, metadata, or completeness of a published article without invalidating its principal findings.

Retractions may be considered when findings are unreliable because of major error, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, duplicate publication, unethical research, manipulated data, or other serious integrity concerns.

An Expression of Concern may be issued when substantial concerns exist but sufficient information for a definitive editorial action is not yet available.