Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Chimica Techno Acta (CTA) is a peer-reviewed, international open access journal publishing original and high-quality articles, reviews, and letters, covering all applied aspects of chemistry and materials science. CTA is dedicated to providing an exclusive platform that generates discussions among researchers, scientists, engineers, and technology developers around advances, current trends and challenges in chemical engineering, characterization and testing of functional materials in terms of their orientation towards industry and large-scale production.

The following aspects are of CTA's particular interest:

  1. Design & engineering of new (metal-, ceramic-, organic-based) materials for applied purposes;
  2. Deep characterization and testing of functional materials;
  3. Lab-to-industry technology transferring for current chemical, metallurgy and energy demands.


Section Policies


Review articles in CTA can be of two major types: Focus Reviews and Comprehensive Reviews.

Focus Reviews represent critical and concise personal opinions covering most recent research activities on topics of interest. Focus reviews are restricted to 4,000 words in the article body (without abstract, figure and table captions, and references), five visual elements (figures, schemes and/or tables) and 40–50 references (a half of which should be published within the past 2–3 years). Additional materials can be provided as supplementary data. Focus Reviews should also include an abstract not exceeding 150 words, a keyword list comprising 5–6 words and phrases, 3–5 highlights (short sentences conveying the core findings, about 10–20 words each) and a brief biography (100 words maximum) completed with a photo for each co-author.

Comprehensive Reviews represent a complete, systematic and well-organized analysis of a specific research field. No restrictions are imposed on the length of Comprehensive Reviews; however, such submissions typically include maximum 15 illustrative materials (figures, schemes and/or tables). Additional illustrative materials can be included as supplementary data. Comprehensive Reviews should also include an abstract not exceeding 250 words, a keyword list comprising 5–8 words and phrases and a brief biography (100 words maximum) completed with a photo for each co-author. No restrictions are imposed on the number of references (150 and more); however, the author(s) are requested to provide a list of 10 most significant cited papers.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Articles are conventional full-length research publications covering a study subject in a thorough and concise manner. No restrictions are imposed on the length of Articles; however, such texts normally include maximum 12 illustrative materials (figures, schemes and/or tables) and 60 references. If required, additional materials can be provided as supplementary data. Articles should also include an abstract not exceeding 250 words and a keyword list consisting of 5–8 words and phrases. Articles typically comprise four sections (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion and, finally, Conclusions). However, the number of such sections can be increased if necessary (e.g., Theoretical Background, Computational Details, Model Validation, etc.).

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Letters are short communications that present concise reports on important results intended for rapid dissemination. Letters are restricted to 3,000 words in the article body (without abstract, figure and table captions, and references), 4 illustrative materials (figures, schemes and/or tables) and 20 references. Additional representative materials can be provided as supplementary data. Letters should include a brief abstract not exceeding 100 words, 5–6 keywords and 3–5 highlights (short sentences conveying the core findings, about 10–20 words each). Letters present a completed (not fragmented, not “salami”) study, whose results can be used as a basis for further research into the nature of the revealed phenomena.

The checklist below summarizes the specific features of papers accepted for publication in CTA.

RequirementsType of manuscript
LetterArticleFocus reviewReview
Overall length (without abstract, captions, and references) in words3,0004,000
Illustrative materials (figures, schemes and/or tables)up to 4up to 12up to 5up to 15
Length of abstract in wordsup to 100200-250up to 150200-250
Number of keywords5–65–85–65–8
Recommended number of cited papers in the Reference list15-2030-6040–50>150
Number of key findings (mandatory)3–53–5
Brief biography (with a photo) (mandatory)++
A list of 10 most significant cited papers (mandatory)+

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Each new paper should be submitted via the Online Submission system. The Editorial Board Member will then review the manuscript to ensure that it has been prepared in accordance with the Author Guidelines and that it falls within the scope of CTA. Decisions on whether to send a manuscript for peer review are usually made within one week of submission.

All manuscripts which meet the journal's requirements will be reviewed by at least one external referee, assigned by the editors. At the submission stage (in the 'Comments for the Editor'), authors should suggest referees as well as indicate those who should not review the paper. These are often helpful, although they are not always followed. The CTA journal uses a "Single blind peer review" model, when the names of the reviewers are hidden from the authors. The manuscripts prepared during a special invitation of the Editorial Board members (so-called invited papers) are internally reviewed by the Editor(s) of the CTA journal.

Each manuscript (except the Editorial) submitted to the CTA journal, along with accompanying files, such as graphical abstract and supplementary materials (if they exist), will go through the standard peer review process. The peer review process takes approximately one month (invitations, acceptance of invitations and preparation of review report(s)), but may be extended due to workload. The following decisions can be made after collecting the review report(s):

• Accept submission:

The decision is usually made after one or several peer review round(s). The accepted manuscript is forwarded to the production team to prepare the final version of the manuscript for publication on the CTA website. Authors have the opportunity to make final minor changes during the proofreading stage. The final version of the manuscript is published in a current (or special) issue; review reports are not posted with the published papers.

• Revisions required:

This decision is formulated based on the comments of the reviewer(s). Authors should provide (i) a separate "response to reviewer(s)" letter, which outlines each change made as raised in the reviewer comments, and (ii) an appropriate rebuttal to each reviewer comment, which is not addressed in the revised version of the manuscript.  The revision should be completed within 2 weeks. Authors should contact the Editorial Office, if they need more time to prepare the revised manuscript.

• Technical revision

This decision can be applied before the peer-review process in case of technical issues. Authors will be asked to resolve these issues within 1 week.

• Reject:

The paper suffers from serious scientific flaws, and/or has weak novelty, significance, and impact signs. This decision can be made either after a preliminary review by the Editorial office or after collecting the comments from reviewer(s). The rejected manuscript may be resubmitted, if all principal comments and remarks are fully addressed.

The Editors have the final decision on acceptance of the manuscript for publication. Authors have the right to appeal to the editors against any decision taken on their manuscript at any stage by sending a rebuttal letter to the editor via the journal's website. Such a letter should explain clearly why you disagree with the decision on your manuscript, and should include a detailed response to any reviewers’ comments.


Open Access Policy

Open access means immediate, worldwide, unrestricted access to the full text of all published articles, ensuring far greater distribution of an author's work than the traditional subscription-based publishing model. In accordance with the original Budapest Open Access Initiative declaration, by "open access" to the full texts of the articles we mean their free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, is to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited. As stated in the Copyright Notice, authors who publish in Chimica Techno Acta retain the copyright of their work, which is released under a Creative Commons Attribution License enabling the unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction of an article, provided that the original work is properly cited.


Publication Fees

In contrast to the majority of Open Access journals, the Chimica Techno Acta journal requires no APC (see Journal Sponsorship).


Editorial Policies

The following Code of Ethics of the Editorial Board of Chimica Techno Acta ("Journal") is composed on the basis of internationally recognized standards of ethics, such as those recommended by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) in its Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

General duties and responsibilities of editors

  • Editors are accountable for everything published in the Journal;
  • Editors take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish;
  • Editors ensure that all published articles have been reviewed by suitably qualified referees and that the peer review is fair, unbiased and timely;
  • Editors maintain the integrity of the academic record;
  • Editors strive to constantly improve their journal;
  • Editors preclude business and commercial needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;
  • Editors publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed;
  • Editorial decisions are not affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors.

Relations with authors

  • Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication are based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the scope of the journal;
  • Editors do not reverse decisions to accept submissions and do not overturn decisions of other editors unless serious problems are identified with the submission;
  • Editors abide by established in the Journal peer review practices, which are described in details on the Journal's web site;
  • Editors publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them, and provide technical support when requested;
  • Authors have a right to appeal against any editorial decisions.
  • Authors have the opportunity to withdraw their manuscript if they wish at any peer review stage. However, a detailed justification for this decision should be provided to the editor.

Relations with reviewers

  • Editors provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them;
  • Editors require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission;
  • Editors require reviewers to handle submitted material in confidence;
  • Editors encourage reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible cases of academic dishonesty;
  • Editors monitor the performance of peer reviewers and take steps to ensure this is of high standard, ceasing to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, low quality or late reviews.

Relations with editorial board members

  • Editors provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and keep existing members updated on new policies and developments;
  • Editors identify suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the development and good management of the journal;
  • Articles submitted by the journal employees or members of the Editorial Board are evaluated on a general basis being given no advantages over the other authors' manuscripts.

Relations with journal owners and publishers

  • The owner and publisher of the Journal is Ural Federal University;
  • Ural Federal University as well as the other agencies outside of the journal itself do not interfere with the editorial decisions on which articles to publish.

Dealing with academic dishonesty

Academic dishonesty in any way is NOT tolerated by the Journal. Some examples of such misconducts along with the good practices that must be used by the authors are presented below.

  • Improper Authorship: authorship must be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the research presented. 
  • Citation Manipulation: submitted manuscript must not contain citations whose sole purpose is to increase the number of citations to a given author's works, or to the articles published in a given journal;
  • Plagiarism and Duplicate Submission: since the Journal is committed to publishing only original papers, submitted manuscripts must not be published elsewhere, or be under review elsewhere, and the results or the words of others must be appropriately cited or quoted;
  • Redundant Publications: there must be no undue fragmentation of the research into several papers;
  • Data Fabrication and Falsification: submitted manuscripts must not contain either fabricated or intentionally falsified experimental results, and when an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his own published work, it is the author's obligation to notify the Editors in order to retract or correct the paper;
  • Intellectual property infringement: submitted manuscripts must not violate intellectual property rights and conventions;
  • Undisclosure of Conflicts of Interest: any possible Conflicts of Interests must be properly disclosed.

Editors at first seek a response from those suspected of academic dishonesty. This response is discussed by Editor-in-Chief and the members of the Editorial Board. In case the response is found not convincing, the Editors reserve the right to impose one or several of the following sanctions:

  • Immediate rejection of the manuscript under consideration;
  • Immediate rejection of any other manuscript submitted to the Journal by the authors of the infringing paper;
  • Making a public statement about the discovery of the academic dishonesty facts.

Note that the latter will be reserved only for the most severe cases of the academic dishonesty.


Conflicts of Interests

Conflict of interest (COI) exists when there is a divergence between an individual’s private interest (competing interest) and his abilities to act as an unbiased author, editor or reviewer. The most obvious conflicts of interests include

  • Financial ties - when authors receive funding from an organization with an interest in the particular outcome of the work;
  • Affiliation - when an author is an employee or a member of an organization with an interest in the particular outcome of the work.

Everyone has COIs of some sort. Having a competing interest is not in itself unethical. However, COI constitutes a problem when it could reasonably be expected to hinder one's abilities to produce an unbiased research or review. When in doubt, it's better to declare the potential conflicts of interests. The rules for disclosure of COIs, established in Chimica Techno Acta, are listed below.

Authors are requested to disclose interests that are directly or indirectly related to the work submitted for publication. Disclosure of interests provides a complete and transparent process, helping readers form their own judgments of potential bias.

Reviewers should not be involved in the peer review process if they fulfill one of the following conditions:

  • Reviewer is a co-authors of the current submission;
  • Reviewer has the same affiliation with that of any author;
  • Reviewer collaborate(ed) with any author within the last 5 years;
  • Reviewer has financial (or other related) interest;
  • Reviewer feels unable to be completely objective in their judgements.

Editorial Board Members
Editorial Board Members (EBMs) are required to declare any competing interests and may be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists. In addition, they should be excluded from handling manuscripts in the following cases:

  • EBM is a co-authors of the current submission;
  • EBM has financial (or other related) interest.

If EBM is an author of a submitted manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief will be assigned to manage the peer-review process. If the Editor-in-Chief is an author of a submitted manuscript, the manuscript will be handled by one of the EBMs. In both cases, these should be declared in the ‘Conflict of interest’ section of the submitted manuscript. Editorial Board Members are welcome to submit papers to the CTA journal. These submissions will not be given any priority over other manuscripts, and Editorial Board Member status has no bearing on editorial consideration.


Authorship and contributorship

The following authorship points should be considered upon forming the author list for a submitted manuscript:

  • Authorship should be limited to only those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, research, interpretation and writing of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.
  • The lead (or corresponding) author confirms that all contributing co-authors and no uninvolved persons are included in the author list.
  • Other persons participating in certain aspects of the research should be recognized in the Acknowledgement section.
  • The lead (or corresponding) author will also verify that all co-authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript as well as have agreed to its submission.
  • The lead (or corresponding) author should finally confirm that all request from CTA at submission, revision and post-publication stages will be properly and timely answered.

We follow the widely recognized CRediT taxonomy (https://credit.niso.org) to highlight a unique contributing role of each co-author: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.


About the Publishing House

Chimica Techno Acta is supported by the Ural University Press publisher which is a division of Ural Federal University (https://urfu.ru/en). Ural University Press publishes around 20 peer-review domestic and international journals covered various subject fields, including

A complete journal list can be found at the following link: https://journals.urfu.ru.

Address: Ural University Press, Turgeneva str. 4, office 106, Ekaterinburg 620000, Russia. Contact person: deputy director Alexey Podchinenov, Tel.: +7(343)371-54-48, e-mail: a.v.podchinenov@urfu.ru.
Chimica Techno Acta is registered with Roskomnadzor as a mass media source (certificate ЭЛ № ФС 77 - 80762 dated 29.03.2021).


Journal performance in Scopus

SCImago Journal & Country Rank