Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

International Journal of Chemical and Petroleum Sciences publishes reports on improvements in the processing of petroleum and natural gas and cracking and refining techniques for the production of high-quality fuels, oils, greases, specialty fluids, additives and synthetics. The journal includes timely articles on the demulsification, desalting, and desulfurizing of crude oil; new flow plans for refineries; platforming, isomerization, catalytic reforming, and alkylation processes for obtaining aromatic hydrocarbons and high-octane gasoline; methods of producing ethylene, acetylene, benzene, acids, alcohols, esters, and other compounds from petroleum, as well as hydrogen from natural gas and liquid products,chemistry including organic chemistry, physical chemistry, analytical chemistry, inorganic chemistry, pharmaceutical chemistry, nanochemistry, environmental chemistry, food chemistry, polymer and petrochemistry.


Section Policies


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Manuscripts should be submitted via the Open Journal Systems (OJS), for manuscript preparation, see Author Guidelines.

The manuscript should be accompanied by a Cover Letter signed by the corresponding author. The Cover Letter, dated and signed in blue ink, should be submitted as a supplementary file during submission process of the manuscript (in pdf format). Manuscripts that are not accompanied by a Cover Letter will be automatically rejected.

The Editor-in-Chief makes an initial appraisal of each manuscript. If the topic and treatment seem potentially appropriate for the journal, the manuscript is assigned to a section editor who oversees the review process. Once the review process has been completed, the section editor recommends acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

On topic papers will be primary tested for plagiarism. If the paper is suspected of plagiarism, it will be automatically rejected.

Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences has a "double blind" review process: authors are not told who reviewed their paper and reviewers are not told who wrote the paper. Peer reviewers are informed of the identity of the authors after the manuscript is either accepted or rejected. The reviewers give their advice on publication opportunity, together with their observations to the editor in chief, which will transmit them to the authors. If the referents have contrary opinions, the editor in chief may ask the opinion of a third referent.

After a decision is reached, a reviewer is free to contact the authors privately about the manuscript. A decision on the manuscript generally may be expected within 3 to 4 months of submission; delays in obtaining reviews may prolong this process. Manuscripts are sent out for review electronically, and all correspondence takes place via e-mail.

After acceptance notification, the corresponding author should remit the final format of the accepted manuscript within three working days after the acceptance notification.



Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.


Publication Ethics

Publication ethics and malpractice statement

Duties of editor-in-chief

The Editor-in-Chief of International Journal of Chemical and Petroleum Sciences (Int J Chem Pet Sci) makes an initial evaluation of each submitted manuscript by using appropriate means to examine the originality of the contents of the submitted manuscripts. In evaluating the submitted manuscripts, the editor-in-chief should limit himself only to the intellectual content and he should not be partial by matters such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. If the submitted manuscript passes this test, it is assigned to a section editor who forward it to two reviewers for double-blind peer review, and each of whom will make a recommendation to publish the article in its present form or to modify or to reject it. The review period will be no more than 2 months, delays in obtaining reviews may prolong this period. Once the review process has been completed, the section editor recommends acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief. The decision will involve input from a Section Editor, volunteer reviewers, and when necessary, consultation with the Journal’s Editorial Board. A decision on the manuscript generally may be expected within 3 to 4 months. The Editor-in-Chief must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential.

Duties of Authors

When submitting a manuscript to International Journal of Chemical and Petroleum Sciences (Int J Chem Pet Sci), submitting author(s) must ensure that the manuscript is their original work, is not plagiarized, wholly or in part. They must also make sure that the submitted article has not been previously published, nor is currently being considered for publication elsewhere, or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor, and that the work of others is properly cited. The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines of International Journal of Chemical and Petroleum Sciences. Finally, it is also the responsibility of submitting author(s) to check that all copyrighted material within the article has permission for publication and that material for which the author does not personally hold copyright is not reproduced without permission.

Duties of Reviewers

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief or political philosophy of the authors. They must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential and must report to the Editor-in-Chief if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s side. It is also the duties of reviewers to keep all unpublished manuscripts, and related materials, confidential. Manuscripts can only be shared with others with the permission of the editors. A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor-in-Chief and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should complete their review within the specified time frame. If additional time is necessary, they should inform the section editor of a delay. Reviewers may decline to review a manuscript for any reason.


Review Guidelines

A. Duties of Reviewers

Importance of Peer Reviewing

Peer review is an essential part of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer Reviewers need to recognize the importance of their role and commit to contributing high quality work to the process of publishing scholarly research.


Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a paper, or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process. If a selected referee agrees to review a paper, they should then adhere to timelines set by the editor.


Any papers received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Study Ethics

Reviewers are encouraged to comment on ethical questions and possible research misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects, including animals).

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers are encouraged to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

B. Questions to guide the reviewer in assessment of the paper

Please provide examples and evidence for responses, do not simply answer yes or no.

1. Topic and content:

1. Is the topic relevant for the journal?

2. Is the content important to the field?

3. Is the work original? (If not, please give references)

2. Title:

Does the title reflect the contents of the article?

3. Abstract:

To what extent does the abstract reflect aspects of the study: background, objectives, methods, results and conclusions?

4. Introduction / Background:

Is the study rationale adequately described?

5. Objectives:

Are the study objectives clearly stated and defined?

6. Methodology:

1. To what extent is the study design appropriate and adequate for the objectives?

2. Is the sample size appropriate and adequately justified?

3. Is the sampling technique appropriate and adequately described?

4. How well are the methods and instruments of data collection described?

5. How well are techniques to minimize bias/errors documented?

7. Ethical Consideration:

If there are issues related to ethics, are they adequately described? (For human studies, has ethical approval been obtained?)

8. Analysis and results:

1. Are the methods adequately described?

2. Are the methods of data analysis appropriate?

3. Do the results answer the research question?

4. Are the results credible?

5. Is statistical significance well documented (e.g. as confidence intervals or P-value)?

6. Are the findings presented logically with appropriate displays and explanations?

9. Discussion:

1. How well are the key findings stated?

2. To what extent have differences or similarities with other studies been discussed and reasons for these given?

3. Are the findings discussed in the light of previous evidence?

4. Are the implications of these findings clearly explained?

5. Is the interpretation warranted by and sufficiently derived from and focused on the data and results?

10. Conclusion(s):

Do the results justify the conclusion(s)?

11. References:

1. Are the references appropriate and relevant?

2. Are they up to date?

3. Are there any obvious, important references that should have been included and have not been?

4. Do the references follow the recommended style?

5. Are there any errors?

12. Writing:

1. Is the paper clearly written?

2. Is the paper presented logically (e.g. correct information in each section, logical flow of arguments)?

3. Are there problems with the grammar / spelling / punctuation / language?