Table of Contents

Publication Standards
Review Process and Editorial Decisions
Appeals

---

Publication Standards

The Journal of Rheology strives to publish the strongest papers in the field of rheology. It considers for publication full-length manuscripts that significantly advance the field of rheology and closely related disciplines in the broader sense and are likely to have a noteworthy scientific and/or technological impact. These manuscripts can be any of the following types:

• Articles: original research studies on the rheological properties of materials, rheological methods or protocols based on new or improved experimental or computational techniques.
• Reviews: comprehensive overviews of a field of research
• Perspectives: author opinions on the direction of a field or new ideas about rheological applications or analysis
• Comment/Response: comments about a published paper and response by the paper’s authors
• Commentary: extended commentary about a topic of rheological significance which does not constitute a research paper.
• Errata: Authors correct significant errors of in their published manuscripts, that may mislead readers. Errata should be written concisely and clearly. For more information, please see AIP Publishing’s policies on Correcting the Scholarly Record.

The Journal of Rheology publishes Special Topics, which are collections of invited and/or contributed papers that highlight new and innovative developments in an emerging or debatable area of rheology. Special Topics are approved by the Editor and organized by the external Guest Editors who have proposed the collection and are experts in the selected topic. Any of the above article types can be considered for a contribution to a Special Topic. All submissions, regardless of invitation status, proceed through the Journal’s standard peer review process.

return to top

Review Process and Editorial Decisions

All submitted manuscripts undergo a check by the editorial office and are then pre-screened by the Editor. By considering factors including but not limited to concerns about duplication of results, scope and relevance, degree of novelty, technical quality, potential impact, presentation and language standard, the editor may decide to Reject a manuscript without review.  Once a manuscript passes the pre-screening process, it is sent out for review. What characterizes the journal is that in-depth, critical reviews are always sought, ensuring that the very best rheology is published. The journal uses single blind peer review. The minimum number of reviews is 2 and there is no maximum. The Editor determines when enough reviewer input has been received to make a decision. Important considerations for reviewers to address are:

1. The results should be original, timely, and significantly advance the field.
2. The background information, including concepts, methods, and techniques, should be  thoroughly described.
3. Sufficient data and rigorous analysis should be presented (if needed appendixes and/or Supporting Material should be used).
4. The abstract and conclusions should convey clear messages with potential impact.
5. The title, presentation (including language) and reference list should be appropriate.
6. The figures should be clear, adequate and of high quality.

The Editor’s decision considers the recommendations of the expert reviewers and is generally described by the following:

• Publish as is: The manuscript can be published immediately.
• Publish with revision optional: The manuscript will be published but the authors are given the chance to make some very minor revision before final acceptance.
• Publish with revision required: The manuscript is likely to be acceptable for publication after appropriate revision.
• Reconsider based on responses to issues raised by reviewers: The manuscript is not publishable in its present form, but may become so after major revision. The revised manuscript will require further review and may need additional revision. It is generally unacceptable for a revised manuscript to be given a decision of Major revision.
• Reject outright: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.
• Reject but recommend to another journal: Whereas, the manuscript is not suitable for the Journal of Rheology, there are merits to the work and the authors are advised to consider submission to another journal.

return to top

Appeals

Authors of rejected manuscript have the right to appeal the Editor’s decision. It is noted however, that the purpose of the appeal process is not to conduct another round of reviews but rather to assess the editorial decision to reject the manuscript with the information at hand. Granting an appeal depends on the type of rejection:

Rejection without review: There is no appeal process in this case. Depending on the reason for rejection, the authors may choose to revise their work and re-submit it, without any guarantee about the outcome.

Rejection after review: This decision results from the editor’s interpretation of the review comments. An author may formally appeal by making a request to the Editorial Office (JOREO@aip.org) or using the Appeal link in PXP. Appeals will only be considered where a clear case with scientific arguments has been made. For example, reinterpretation of the reviewers’ reports highlighting positive remarks. Engaging in criticism or personal attacks on the reviewers or editor are reasons not to grant an appeal.

Once an appeal is granted by the editor, if the editor accepts the authors’ arguments and reconsiders the original decision, an additional review round will initiate. Otherwise, the manuscript and all relevant information, will be sent to a member of the Editorial Board who has not been involved in the review process. This person shall review the existing record and decide or may seek additional expert opinion. A final recommendation will be sent to Editor, who will make the final decision. If the appeal is denied, this marks the end of the process. If the appeal is accepted, the authors may be asked to submit a revised manuscript. In this case, the Editor would continue the normal review process, which may include additional review.

Resubmission of a rejected manuscript after review will be considered only if it is accompanied by detailed description of changes that convincingly show how the previously identified shortcomings have been addressed.  Resubmission of a rejected manuscript with appeal denied, will not be considered.

return to top