ARTICLE REJECTION

Rejection is an editorial judgment about the suitability, quality, and integrity of a submission — never a judgment on an author's character. 

Journal of Biobased Chemicals follows the core principles set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for fair, transparent, and accountable editorial decision-making. Rejection is the mechanism by which the editorial team ensures that only submissions meeting the journal's scientific, ethical, and scope requirements enter the peer-reviewed literature.

Authors whose manuscripts are rejected are given a clear, evidence-based explanation and, where applicable, guidance on whether resubmission elsewhere or after revision may be appropriate.

The editor may decide to reject a submission when one or more of the following apply:

• The manuscript falls outside the journal's aims and scope (e.g., not related to biobased chemicals, sustainable feedstocks, or green chemistry processes).

• The scientific quality is insufficient — flawed experimental design, unsupported conclusions, inadequate methodology, or data that cannot be verified.

• Peer review identifies major, unresolved concerns about the validity, novelty, or significance of the findings.

• There is evidence of plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, image manipulation, or other research misconduct.

• The submission constitutes redundant or duplicate publication of work already published or under consideration elsewhere.

• Authorship cannot be verified, or there are unresolved disputes about contributorship at the time of submission.

• Undisclosed competing interests or undisclosed use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools materially affect the assessment of the work.

• The research reported was not conducted or reported in accordance with accepted ethical standards (eg, missing ethics approval, biosafety, or consent documentation where required).

• The manuscript does not comply with the journal's author guidelines, and the author does not address this after being given the opportunity to do so.

• The corresponding author fails to respond to editorial or reviewer queries within a reasonable, clearly communicated timeframe.

For questions about a specific case or about this policy in general, contact the editorial office below.