GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS
MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION
Please submit only your original scientific, review, and professional papers through online article submission system (Journal Admin KUI) by clicking the Submit Paper button.
Fileds of the journal are chemistry and chemical engineering. Manuscripts are accepted based on the originality, scientific quality, and clarity and conciseness of the writing. Submitted manuscripts must not be under consideration by another journal simultaneously.
Before submission, authors are strongly advised to have their manuscript checked for English language and grammar by a native English speaker. Manuscripts with inadequate language quality will be rejected during preliminary evaluation, prior to the initiation of the peer-review process.
Before submitting, carefully read the Instructions for Authors, Manuscript Requirements, FAQ, About the journal, Publication Ethics, Plagiarism Policy, Copyright Policy, and GenAI Statement.
For any additional information or assistance, please contact us at: kui@hdki.hr.
DOCUMENT PREPARATION GUIDELINES
INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS MANUSCRIPT REQUIREMENTS
TEMPLATE FOR PAPER PREPARATION
For paper preparation please use the template below:
TEMPLATE FOR PAPERS TEMPLATE FOR PAPERS
GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS
PREPARING A REVIEW REPORT
The reviewer’s report serves two key purposes: first, to provide the editor with a clear and well-reasoned basis for a publication decision, and second, to guide the authors in improving their manuscript when revisions are possible.
When composing your review report, begin with an introductory paragraph that briefly outlines the paper’s main contributions, your general impression of the work, and its principal weaknesses. Follow this with numbered, detailed comments, ideally separated into major and minor points.
RESPONSIBLE USE OF AI TOOLS
Reviewers must treat all submitted materials as strictly confidential until the editorial decision has been finalized. This confidentiality extends to the use of any large language model (LLM) or other AI-assisted tools. Reviewers must not copy or input confidential manuscript content into LLMs or other external systems. AI tools may only be used for language polishing or stylistic improvement, not for writing or generating the review itself.
KEY QUESTIONS FOR THE REVIEW
When evaluating a manuscript, please consider the following:
• Does the manuscript fall within the Aims and Scope of the journal?
(see: About the journal section)
• Has the manuscript been prepared in accordance with the journal’s
Manuscript Requirements:
– is the summary clear and precise, does it state the major findings and
conclusions of the paper?
– are the illustrations accompanied by captions, and are they drawn and
lettered adequately?
– does the author(s) use standard nomenclature and is the SI system of
units used consequently?
– are the references cited accordingly?
• Is the writing clear, precise, and well organized?
• Are all methodological details, materials, and equipment sufficiently
described to allow reproducibility and replicability?
• Have the authors published similar work previously, or does the topic
duplicate existing literature? (see: Plagiarism policy section)
• Are there any ethical issues? If ethical approval was required, has
appropriate documentation been provided?
(see: Publication Ethics section)
• Are the statistical methods suitable, and are the results accurately
analysed and clearly presented?
Please mark quality of technical presentation (excellent – bad)
• What are the paper’s main claims, and how original, significant, and
convincing are they?
• Are the findings discussed appropriately in relation to earlier studies?
• Does the study appeal to a broad readership, beyond a narrow specialist
audience?
• Does the manuscript distinguish itself from similar work in the field?
Please mark the novelty of the work (0–25, 25–50, 50–75 or 50–100 %)
• Classify the paper (original scientific paper; professional paper; review;
short communication; preliminary communication; conference paper;
nomenclature note)
EVALUATION CRITERIA & RECOMMENDATIONS
Manuscripts should be assessed according to originality, scientific quality, technical presentation, and relevance to the journal. In your confidential note to the editor, please include:
• A clear publication recommendation (to be indicated in the referee’s
report).
• Your assessment of how additional experiments could improve the paper
and whether they are feasible within a reasonable
time frame (i.e. two-three months).
• For manuscripts unsuitable in their current form, indicate whether the
study shows potential for future resubmission.
POSSIBLE EDITORIAL DECISIONS
Based on the reviewers’ evaluations, the editors may reach one of the following decisions:
• Acceptance – The paper requires no further changes.
• Minor revision – Only minor corrections or clarifications are needed,
typically achievable within one month.
• Major revision – Substantial revision is necessary, but the paper remains
promising and could be accepted after revision within approximately
two months.
• Rejection – The paper would require extensive work exceeding a
reasonable timeframe (three months or more).
SUBMITTING THE REVIEW REPORT
Three reviewers for each submitted manuscript are selected among international experts in the relevant field. Within review request email, reviewer receives:
• login credentials (username & password),
• link to the manuscript
(http://silverstripe.fkit.hr/kui/authors/my-papers),
• a link to the Online Review Form for review report submission.
If a reviewer does not respond to the review invitation within 10 days of receiving the email, the invitation is automatically withdrawn and the review process is terminated.
When uploading your report to the Journal Admin KUI submission system, please verify that any additional files containing comments are properly attached before submitting.
Reviewers’ assessments are highly valued and form an essential part of the editorial process. However, as final editorial decisions take into account multiple reports and considerations, reviewers should note that the editor may not follow every individual recommendation.
The review process lasts approximately 30 days.
The reviewers’ identities are anonymous to the authors (single-blind peer review).