Editorial and Publication Process

Progress on Chemistry and Application of Chitin and its Derivatives (PCACD)

The journal Progress on Chemistry and Application of Chitin and its Derivatives follows a transparent editorial and publication process designed to ensure the high scientific quality of published articles, impartial evaluation, research integrity and adherence to publication ethics.

The procedures described below complement the journal's Guide for Authors and Publication Ethics Guidelines, which set out the requirements for manuscript preparation and responsible conduct throughout the publication process.

I. Manuscript Submission and Editorial Evaluation

1. Manuscript Submission

Manuscripts should be submitted by e-mail to the Editor-in-Chief in an editable Microsoft Word (DOCX) format, using the current manuscript template available on the journal's website.

Submissions should be made by the corresponding author. If the manuscript is submitted by another co-author, all designated corresponding authors must be copied into the e-mail correspondence.

The corresponding author is responsible for communication with the Editorial Office and for ensuring that all co-authors have approved the submission of the manuscript to the journal.

2. Acknowledgement of Receipt

The Editorial Office acknowledges receipt of the manuscript by e-mail.

This acknowledgement confirms only that the submission has been received; it does not constitute a decision to send the manuscript for peer review or to accept it for publication.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon receipt, the manuscript undergoes an initial editorial and technical screening, which considers, in particular, its relevance to the journal's scope, completeness of the submission, compliance with manuscript preparation requirements, accuracy of author information, preliminary assessment of originality and compliance with publication ethics.

Manuscripts may also undergo a similarity check using appropriate plagiarism-detection software.

Following the initial screening, the manuscript may be:

• referred for peer review;
• returned to the authors for technical corrections or additional information;
• rejected without external peer review if it does not meet the journal's requirements.

Minor technical deficiencies may also be addressed at later stages of editorial evaluation.

4. Author Declaration

Before peer review begins, the corresponding author is required to submit the completed and signed Author Declarationform provided by the journal.

The declaration confirms that all co-authors have approved the submission and that the journal's requirements concerning originality, authorship, publication ethics, conflicts of interest and other relevant matters have been met.

The manuscript may be sent for external peer review only after the required declaration has been received.

5. Peer-Review Model

PCACD operates a single-blind peer-reviewsystem in which reviewers know the authors' identities, while reviewers' identities are not disclosed to the authors.

Every article accepted for publication is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewerswith appropriate scientific expertise.

Reviewers are selected by the Editorial Office on the basis of their scientific expertise, independence and absence of conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality and provide an objective, thorough and constructive assessment of the manuscript.

6. Reviewer Invitations and Manuscript Evaluation

The Editorial Office contacts prospective reviewers and invites them to assess manuscripts relevant to their scientific expertise.

Once a reviewer accepts the invitation, the manuscript and the information required to prepare the review are provided.

The review considers, in particular, the originality and scientific merit of the work, the methodology employed, interpretation of the results, currency and relevance of the literature, clarity of presentation and compliance with scientific and ethical requirements.

Reviewers' recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

7. Review Timelines

Reviewers are normally asked to submit their reports within four to six weeks.

Extensions may be granted in justified circumstances. Where necessary, the Editorial Office sends reminders or invites alternative reviewers.

Extensions may be granted in justified circumstances. Where necessary, the Editorial Office sends reminders or invites alternative reviewers.

8. Editorial Decisions

After considering the reviewers' reports, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions:

• Accept – the manuscript is accepted for publication.
• Minor Revision – limited scientific, editorial or technical corrections are required.
• Major Revision – substantial changes, additional analyses or detailed scientific clarifications are required.
• Reject – the manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.

If reviewers' opinions differ substantially, the Editor-in-Chief may seek an additional independent review.

The Editor-in-Chief may also provide the authors with additional editorial comments.

The decision to accept a manuscript takes into account its scientific quality, the reviewers' opinions, compliance with publication ethics and satisfactory completion of the required revisions.

9. Revised Manuscripts and Responses to Reviewers

Authors invited to revise their manuscript are required to submit:

• a revised manuscript in editable DOCX format, with changes clearly indicated;
• a separate Response to Reviewersdocument addressing all reviewers' comments point by point.

Responses should explain the changes made and identify where they can be found in the revised manuscript. If the authors do not agree with a reviewer's comment, they should provide an appropriate scientific justification.

For minor revisions, the usual deadline is two to three weeks. For major revisions requiring additional experiments or analyses, authors may be allowed three to five weeks.

Authors may request an extension from the Editorial Office where justified.

Depending on the nature and extent of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers or assessed directly by the Editor-in-Chief.

10. Failure to Respond or Submit a Revised Manuscript

If the authors fail to submit a revised manuscript or respond to the editorial decision by the specified deadline, the Editorial Office may send a reminder.

The authors are then given an additional 10 calendar days to submit the revisions, respond or request an extension, indicating a proposed date for completion.

If the authors do not submit the revised manuscript or contact the Editorial Office within this additional period, the Editor-in-Chief may decide to reject the manuscript on procedural groundsand inform the corresponding author accordingly.

Consideration of the manuscript is then concluded. Any subsequent submission of the work is treated as a new submission.

11. Changes in Authorship or Author Order

Changes to the list or order of authors are permitted only before final acceptance of the manuscript for publication..

Any such change requires:

• a justification;
• completion of the Change of Authorship Form;
• signatures from all authors on the original and proposed author lists, including any authors being added or removed;
• approval by the Editor-in-Chief.

The corresponding author must submit the completed form, copying into the e-mail correspondence all authors affected by the proposed change.

If the authors cannot reach an agreement, editorial processing may be suspended until the matter has been resolved by the authors or, where justified, by the relevant academic institutions.

After final acceptance, changes to the list or order of authors are not permitted as part of the standard editorial process.

Confirmed errors in author information identified after publication, such as an incorrectly spelt given name or surname, may be rectified only through the formal correction procedure described in Section 22.

12. Manuscript Withdrawal

Before final acceptance, the corresponding author may request withdrawal of a manuscript in writing by e-mail, copying all co-authors into the correspondence.

The request must clearly identify the manuscript. If any co-author raises concerns or objects to the withdrawal, the Editorial Office may request further clarification.

Withdrawal takes effect once it has been confirmed in writing by the Editorial Office.

After final acceptance, withdrawal is not automatic. Each request must be appropriately justified and is considered individually by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the stage of the publication process and the circumstances of the case.

After publication, any concerns are dealt with under the applicable procedures for published articles, rather than through standard manuscript withdrawal.

13. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal against a decision to reject a manuscript within 10 calendar days of receiving notification of that decision.

One substantive appeal is considered in relation to a given manuscript and editorial decision.

The appeal should explain the grounds for reconsideration and provide appropriate scientific or procedural justification.

The Editor-in-Chief assesses the appeal and may, where necessary, consult an independent expert or an appropriate member of the Editorial Board.

The decision following consideration of the appeal is final.

Submitting an appeal does not suspend the journal's publication schedule, and a successful appeal does not guarantee publication in a particular annual volume.

II. Acceptance, Production and Publication

14. Final Acceptance of the Manuscript

Once peer review has been successfully completed and the required revisions have been made, the Editor-in-Chief informs the corresponding author of the final decision to accept the manuscript for publication.

Final acceptance signifies the completion of the scientific evaluation of the manuscript and the decision to accept it for publication.

Before publication, the Editorial Office may still require technical corrections from the authors, particularly concerning the quality of figures, tables, formatting or other elements necessary to prepare the final published version.

15. Final Technical Checks and Editorial Preparation

Following acceptance, the Editorial Office carries out a final technical check of the material intended for publication.

This may include verification of author details, affiliations, ORCID identifiers, references, figures, tables, numerical data, formatting and publication metadata.

The Editorial Office may undertake language and stylistic editing to improve readability and consistency without altering the scientific meaning of the text.

Where information needs to be added, data corrected or ambiguities clarified, the Editorial Office contacts the corresponding author.

Substantive changes to the scientific content cannot be introduced without the authors' involvement and, where necessary, further editorial assessment.

16. Typesetting and Author Proofs

The accepted manuscript is prepared for publication in accordance with the journal's layout and formatting standards.

The corresponding author receivesauthor proofsfor checking the text, figures, tables and author details, and for responding to any editorial queries.

Authors are normally asked to return their corrections and provide written approval of the final version within 48 hours. In justified circumstances, this deadline may be extended, usually to a maximum of four working days.

Requested corrections should clearly identify the relevant pages, sections or lines.

Proof correction is intended primarily to remedy errors introduced during production and other necessary defects. Substantial changes to the scientific content are not permitted without further editorial assessment.

If no response is received, the Editorial Office may send a reminder and allow an additional five calendar days..

Publication requires explicit written approval of the proofs. Failure to provide such approval may result in postponement of publication, potentially until the journal's next annual volume.

17. DOI Registration and Publication of the Annual Volume

Once production has been completed and the final article files approved, the journal registers the relevant metadata and Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) with Crossref.

PCACD publishes one annual volume, normally made available online by 15 Octoberand in print by 30 October.

The electronic and printed versions contain the same scientific content as originally published.

The publication date depends on the successful completion of all editorial and production stages.

18. Author Notification and Dissemination

Following publication of the annual volume, the Editorial Office informs corresponding authors that their articles have been published and provides information on how to access the published volume.

Article metadata and bibliographic information are supplied to relevant indexing and abstracting databases and scholarly discovery services, as appropriate to the journal's arrangements with individual organisations.

The journal cannot guarantee immediate indexing or inclusion in every bibliographic database.

19. Archiving and Long-Term Availability

Published articles are made available on the journal's website.

The journal also deposits publications in Biblioteka Nauki and continues to improve the completeness and accessibility of its electronic archive.

The Editorial Office aims to ensure lasting and reliable access to published articles and their associated bibliographic metadata.

III. Editorial Independence and Procedures Following Publication

20. Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editorial decisions are based on the scientific merit of the manuscript, reviewers' opinions and compliance with publication ethics.

Members of the Editorial Board may submit their own manuscripts to PCACD. Such submissions are subject to the same initial editorial screening and peer-review procedures as all other manuscripts, including evaluation by at least two independent external reviewers.

An Editorial Board member who is an author of a submitted manuscript does not participate in the selection of reviewers or in editorial decisions concerning their own work.

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for ensuring the impartiality of the editorial process.

21. Complaints Concerning the Editorial Process

Complaints concerning editorial procedures, compliance with publication ethics or the handling of a manuscript may be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief.

Complaints concerning the conduct or decisions of the Editor-in-Chief may be addressed to the President of the Polish Chitin Society or another impartial member of the Society's Management Board.

Current information on the composition of the Management Board is available on the Polish Chitin Society's website.

Complaints are considered impartially and confidentially, taking account of the circumstances of the case and the relevant principles of publication ethics.

The complainant is informed of the outcome to the extent permitted by confidentiality requirements.

22. Corrections Following Publication

PCACD is committed to maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the published scholarly record.

Minor typographical or formatting errors that do not affect the scientific content of an article do not normally require a formal correction notice.

If a significant error is identified after publication, the Editor-in-Chief assesses its nature and implications.

Errors requiring formal correction may be addressed through a separately published Corrigendum or another appropriate correction notice.

Such notices are linked to the original article and, where appropriate, receive their own DOI. The relevant relationships between publication metadata records are also updated.

The Editorial Office does not make undocumented changes to published PDF files. Significant errors are corrected transparently, enabling readers to identify the nature of the correction and the reasons for it.

23. Retractions and Expressions of Concern

The journal investigates credible concerns regarding the reliability, integrity or ethical compliance of published research.

Where necessary, the Editorial Office may ask the authors for explanations and supporting materials, and consult independent experts or relevant institutions.

A Retraction may be issued where research findings are substantially unreliable or where serious breaches of research or publication ethics justify retracting an article from the scholarly record.

In exceptional circumstances, the Editorial Office may publish an Expression of Concernwhere serious unresolved concerns about an article should be brought to readers' attention before an investigation has been completed.

In the case of a retraction, the Editorial Office publishes a separate notice explaining the reasons for the decision and clearly identifying the article concerned. The notice is linked to the original article and receives its own DOI.

The retraction is clearly indicated on the article's webpage, and the relevant links and status information are recorded in the bibliographic metadata, including Crossref.

The article remains accessible in the journal's archive, with its retracted status clearly communicated to readers. The Editorial Office determines how the PDF is technically marked, taking account of relevant publishing standards.

These procedures are implemented in accordance with PCACD's Publication Ethics Guidelines and the relevant recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Related Journal Documents

Authors, reviewers and readers should also consult the following documents:

• Guide for Authors – manuscript preparation and submission, formatting requirements, preprints and other instructions for authors.
• Publication Ethics Guidelines – authorship, originality, plagiarism, conflicts of interest, use of artificial intelligence, research integrity and the responsibilities of authors, reviewers and editors.

These documents should be read together with the present Editorial and Publication Process.