Cite as: Mater. Plast.
OSIM Nr. R102356
ISSN Print 0025-5289
ISSN Online 2668-8220
* Impact factor 2019: 1.517
* 5-Year IF: 1.179
* CiteScore: 2.4
* H index: 22
| Volume 57, 2020 |
| Volume 56, 2019 |
| Volume 55, 2018 |
| Volume 54, 2017 |
| Volume 53, 2016 |
| Volume 52, 2015 |
| Volume 51, 2014 |
| Volume 50, 2013 |
| Volume 49, 2012 |
| Volume 48, 2011 |
| Volume 47, 2010 |
| Volume 46, 2009 |
| Volume 45, 2008 |
| Volume 44, 2007 |
| Volume 43, 2006 |
| Volume 42, 2005 |
| Volume 41, 2004 |
| Volume 40, 2003 |
Revista de Chimie SRL, as publisher of MATERIALE PLASTICE, aims to conform with Elsevier Publishing Ethics and the Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
A. Guidelines for Authors
1. Submitted papers must be entirely original work of the author(s).
2. The contents of papers submitted to MATERIALE PLASTICE are the sole responsibility of the authors - which are fully responsible for any kind of plagiarisms or errors.
3. MATERIALE PLASTICE does not publish papers that have been already published in other national or foreign journals. The rejected papers will not be returned to the authors.
4. If the papers have multiple authors, all listed authors should have a a significant contribution to the work, all of them must approve the final version and all of them must approve the submission of the paper.
5. The Authors must declare any potential conflict of interest.
6. The Authors must confirm that all any studies involving human or animal subjects must have been carried out in accordance with EU Directive 2010/63/EU for animal experiments
7. The Authors must notify promptly MATERIALE PLASTICE about any significant error or inaccuracy in their papers.
8. MATERIALE PLASTICE has the copyright for all the published papers. This is why papers cannot be published (completely or partially) in other journals unless authorized by the editorial board.
Ethical Statement for Authors
B. Guidelines for Editors
1. Editors have the responsability to accept the submitted papers for publication in MATERIALE PLASTICE free of any conflict of interest. The decision must be solely based on their academic and scientific value, importance, originality and quality of research.
2. Editors must cooperate with authors and reviewers in the publishing process.
3. Editors must protect the confidentiality of all submitted papers.
4. Correction and retraction of articles
Editors may authorize corrections (minor or major) to a published article.
When necessary, retraction of articles will be done according to COPE retraction guidelines.
5. Plagiarism detection
All new papers submitted to Materiale Plastice are automatically screened using ithenticate and Turnitin within the editorial system.
C. Guidelines for Reviewers
Basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere
Peer reviewers should:
1. only agree to review papers for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner
2. respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a paper or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal
3. not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others
4. declare all potential conflicting of interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest
5. not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a paper, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations
6. be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments
7. acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner
8. provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise
9. recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct
Peer reviewers Process