Journal Policy

1. Journal Philosophy and Scope

Journal Philosophy

The Journal of Corrosion and Coatings seeks to advance fundamental and applied knowledge concerning corrosion, materials degradation, surface engineering, protective coatings, corrosion prevention, and materials durability.

The journal emphasizes research that connects degradation mechanisms, surface and interface science, protection technologies, materials characterization, and measurable engineering performance.

Scope and Relevance

Relevant areas include electrochemical corrosion, localized corrosion, stress corrosion cracking, corrosion fatigue, hydrogen damage, high-temperature oxidation, marine corrosion, microbiologically influenced corrosion, protective coatings, coating deposition, corrosion inhibitors, cathodic protection, surface engineering, corrosion monitoring, computational corrosion, failure analysis, and materials integrity.

Manuscripts must demonstrate meaningful relevance to corrosion, materials degradation, protective coatings, surface technology, corrosion control, or material durability.

Routine material testing or simple coating formulation without sufficient scientific novelty, mechanistic interpretation, characterization, comparative evaluation, or performance validation may be considered outside the journal's publication priorities.

2. Submission Eligibility

Who Can Submit?

The Journal of Corrosion and Coatings welcomes manuscripts from researchers, academics, materials scientists, corrosion engineers, surface scientists, postgraduate researchers, industry professionals, laboratory specialists, and interdisciplinary research teams whose work falls within the aims and scope of the journal.

Equal Consideration

Manuscripts are evaluated on scholarly merit, originality, scientific rigor, relevance, methodological quality, ethical integrity, and contribution to knowledge.

Nationality, institutional affiliation, geographical origin, academic seniority, gender, personal belief, or funding status shall not determine whether a manuscript is considered for publication.

3. General Submission Rules

Originality

Manuscripts must represent original scholarly work. Text, concepts, equations, datasets, photographs, microscopy images, spectra, graphs, software, models, figures, coating formulations, and other externally derived materials must be appropriately acknowledged and cited.

Concurrent Submission

A manuscript submitted to the journal must not simultaneously be under consideration by another journal.

Authors should disclose related conference papers, preprints, theses, reports, datasets, or previous publications that substantially overlap with the submitted work.

Authorship

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made substantial scholarly contributions to the conception, design, methodology, investigation, analysis, interpretation, or preparation of the research.

All listed authors must approve the submitted version and agree to be accountable for their contributions. Guest, gift, honorary, purchased, and ghost authorship are not acceptable.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose any financial, professional, commercial, institutional, or personal relationship that could reasonably influence or appear to influence the research or interpretation of findings.

Funding Disclosure

Research grants, laboratory support, industry sponsorship, material supply, equipment support, and other relevant financial or institutional assistance should be clearly acknowledged.

Permissions

Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to publish copyrighted or restricted photographs, figures, datasets, documents, or other materials included in the submission when required.

Generative Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence systems cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. Human authors remain fully responsible for the originality, accuracy, integrity, references, calculations, material properties, corrosion data, interpretations, and conclusions of the manuscript.

Substantive use of generative AI for manuscript preparation, coding, analysis, visualization, or image generation should be transparently disclosed where applicable.

4. Manuscript Preparation

Formatting

Manuscripts should follow the current Author Guidelines and journal manuscript template. Authors should ensure consistency in headings, terminology, symbols, abbreviations, units, references, tables, and figures.

Scientific Reporting

Research methods must be described in sufficient detail to permit meaningful scholarly assessment and, where reasonably possible, reproduction of the study.

Authors should clearly report experimental conditions, specimen preparation, materials, exposure environment, equipment, analytical procedures, calculations, statistical treatment, controls, validation, uncertainty, and limitations where applicable.

Figures and Scientific Images

Micrographs, photographs, electrochemical plots, spectra, diffraction patterns, surface maps, numerical contours, and other scientific images must accurately represent the underlying research data.

Manipulation that obscures, removes, introduces, moves, or misrepresents scientifically relevant information is prohibited.

Tables

Tables should present information clearly and efficiently without unnecessary duplication of information already presented in figures or the main text.

References

References should be accurate, complete, relevant, and appropriate to the scientific context of the manuscript. Excessive self-citation, irrelevant citation, citation padding, or coordinated citation manipulation is not acceptable.

5. Peer Review Process

Initial Editorial Screening

Every manuscript is first evaluated by an editor to determine whether it meets the aims and scope of the journal, satisfies minimum scholarly standards, and complies with basic research and publication requirements.

External Peer Review

Manuscripts considered suitable after editorial screening are normally sent to appropriately qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript.

Reviewers are expected to assess the manuscript independently, confidentially, objectively, and constructively.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected according to subject expertise, scholarly experience, independence, and absence of significant conflicts of interest.

Review Criteria

Reviewers may consider:

• Originality and scientific contribution;
• Relevance to corrosion and coatings;
• Methodological rigor;
• Quality of experimental design;
• Appropriateness of material characterization;
• Reliability of electrochemical or corrosion data;
• Validation and reproducibility;
• Mechanistic interpretation;
• Engineering relevance;
• Quality of discussion and conclusions; and
• Compliance with research integrity standards.

Editorial Decisions

Following editorial evaluation and peer review, decisions may include:

Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions, but final responsibility for the decision remains with the authorized editor.

Editorial Independence

Decisions must not be influenced by author fees, commercial relationships, institutional affiliation, personal relationships, or other interests unrelated to scholarly merit.

6. Desk Rejection Policy

Editorial Screening

The editorial team may decline a manuscript before external peer review when the submission does not satisfy the journal's scope, scholarly expectations, ethical requirements, or minimum manuscript standards.

Grounds for Desk Rejection

Reasons may include, but are not limited to:

• The manuscript is outside the aims and scope of the journal.
• The research lacks sufficient originality or scientific contribution.
• The work consists primarily of routine corrosion testing without meaningful scientific interpretation.
• A coating study reports formulation or performance without adequate characterization or validation.
• Experimental methodology is fundamentally inadequate.
• Electrochemical or corrosion data are insufficiently supported or interpreted.
• Numerical or computational results lack appropriate verification or validation.
• Significant research-integrity concerns are identified.
• Plagiarism or substantial redundant publication is identified.
• The manuscript is substantially incomplete.
• Language or presentation prevents meaningful scholarly evaluation.

Desk rejection does not necessarily imply research misconduct. It may indicate that the manuscript does not sufficiently align with the journal's scholarly priorities.

7. Plagiarism and Similarity Policy

Similarity Screening

Manuscripts may be evaluated using recognized similarity-detection software during editorial screening or at another stage of the publication process.

Interpretation of Similarity

A similarity percentage alone does not determine whether plagiarism has occurred. Editors consider the source, nature, location, extent, context, originality, and attribution of matching material.

Unacceptable Practices

• Direct plagiarism;
• Unattributed paraphrasing;
• Substantial text recycling without disclosure;
• Duplicate or redundant publication;
• Unauthorized reuse of figures or data;
• Misleading reuse of previous experimental results;
• Fabricated or nonexistent references; and
• Reuse of previously published scientific images in a manner that creates a false impression of new experimental results.

Editorial Action

Depending on the seriousness of the concern, the journal may request clarification, request revision, decline a manuscript, issue a correction or expression of concern, or retract a publication when appropriate.

8. Research Data and Reproducibility

Research Data

Authors should retain original data and supporting documentation necessary to substantiate the findings reported in the manuscript.

Relevant materials may include:

Data Availability

Where legally, ethically, commercially, and technically appropriate, authors are encouraged to make supporting datasets available through recognized repositories or supplementary files.

Raw Data Requests

Editors may request raw or supporting data when necessary to evaluate scientific validity, reproducibility, image integrity, or research-integrity concerns.

Computational Reproducibility

Computational corrosion, multiphysics modelling, molecular simulation, machine-learning, artificial-intelligence, or predictive studies should describe datasets, assumptions, governing models, parameters, boundary conditions, training procedures, validation, verification, performance metrics, and relevant limitations.

9. Corrosion and Coatings Research Policy

Experimental Corrosion Studies

Authors should provide sufficient information concerning specimen material, chemical composition where relevant, surface preparation, exposure environment, temperature, pH, electrolyte composition, test duration, specimen geometry, replication, and relevant standards or procedures.

Electrochemical Research

Studies employing polarization, electrochemical impedance spectroscopy, open-circuit potential, linear polarization resistance, or related methods should clearly describe the cell configuration, electrodes, exposed area, electrolyte, stabilization procedures, scan conditions, frequency range, fitting methods, and other parameters required for scientific interpretation.

Corrosion Performance Claims

Claims concerning corrosion resistance, inhibition efficiency, coating protection, service-life improvement, or durability must be supported by appropriate experimental or computational evidence.

Coating Studies

Manuscripts involving coatings should provide, where appropriate, sufficient information on substrate preparation, coating composition, deposition process, curing, thickness, surface condition, adhesion, porosity, defects, and testing environment.

Surface Characterization

SEM, EDS/EDX, XRD, XPS, AFM, Raman, FTIR, optical microscopy, profilometry, or other characterization techniques should be reported with sufficient methodological detail and appropriate interpretation.

Image Integrity

Scientific images must represent actual research observations. Digital adjustment must not introduce, remove, move, conceal, or misrepresent scientifically meaningful features.

Failure and Industrial Studies

Case studies involving pipelines, pressure equipment, ships, offshore systems, industrial plants, civil infrastructure, or other engineering assets should provide transferable scientific or engineering insights rather than only descriptive incident reports.

Confidential and Proprietary Data

Authors using proprietary industrial data are responsible for obtaining appropriate authorization for publication. Confidential, commercially sensitive, or security-sensitive information should be appropriately protected.

Laboratory Safety

Research involving corrosive acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, heavy metals, organic solvents, nanomaterials, pressurized systems, or hazardous substances should comply with applicable laboratory and disposal requirements.

Sustainability Claims

Terms such as sustainable, green, environmentally friendly, eco-friendly, non-toxic, chromium-free, or low-impact should only be used when supported by appropriate scientific evidence.

10. Withdrawal Policy

Withdrawal Requests

Authors wishing to withdraw a manuscript should submit a formal request to the editorial office identifying the manuscript title, submission number, corresponding author, and reason for withdrawal.

The corresponding author should make the request with the knowledge and agreement of all co-authors.

During Peer Review or Revision

Authors may request withdrawal while a manuscript is under evaluation, peer review, or revision. Additional confirmation may be requested if authorship or ethical issues are involved.

After Acceptance

Withdrawal after formal acceptance should occur only under exceptional circumstances because significant editorial, peer-review, and production resources may already have been committed.

Ethical Investigations

Withdrawal does not prevent the journal from investigating credible allegations of plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, authorship disputes, or other research-integrity concerns.

11. Complaints and Appeals

Editorial Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant factual, procedural, methodological, or scholarly matter has been overlooked.

Appeals should identify the manuscript, specify the decision being challenged, and provide a concise, evidence-based explanation.

Disagreement with editorial judgment or reviewer recommendations alone does not automatically constitute grounds for reconsideration.

Independent Consideration

Where practicable, an appeal may be considered by an editor who was not primarily responsible for the original decision.

Complaints

Authors, reviewers, readers, and other stakeholders may submit concerns regarding peer review, editorial conduct, conflicts of interest, published material, or other journal procedures.

Complaints should be respectful and supported with sufficient information to permit appropriate evaluation.

Research-Integrity Concerns

Allegations concerning fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, authorship disputes, citation manipulation, peer-review manipulation, or other misconduct may require additional documentation and communication with relevant parties or institutions.

12. Post-Publication Policy

Corrections

When an error affects part of a published article but does not invalidate its principal findings, the journal may publish a correction or another appropriate notice.

Expressions of Concern

An expression of concern may be issued when credible questions arise regarding the integrity or reliability of a publication but sufficient evidence for a final conclusion is not yet available.

Retractions

An article may be retracted when there is clear evidence that its findings are unreliable because of serious error, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, unethical research, duplicate publication, manipulated peer review, or another serious violation of research or publication integrity.

Transparency of the Scholarly Record

Corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, and related notices should remain clearly linked to the original publication so readers can understand its current status and publication history.

Post-Publication Discussion

The journal welcomes responsible scholarly discussion concerning published articles. Credible concerns regarding errors, interpretation, reproducibility, data integrity, or research conduct may be submitted to the editorial office.