1. Reporting Standard: Reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient details and references to permit others to replicate the work.
2. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works. If authors have used the work and/or words of others, these must be appropriately cited or quoted.
3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication: Authors should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is not accepted.
4. Acknowledgment of Sources: Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should also be disclosed.
6. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
7. Self-Citation Policy: Authors are forbidden to use inappropriate self-citation or citation practices that do not directly support the submitted manuscript.

1. Fair Play: Editors evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2. Confidentiality: Editors and editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the expressed written consent of the author.
4. Criteria of Editors: Editors, both local and international, should have a minimum H-index, Scopus ID, or published paper or manuscript in an international journal indexed by Scopus. Editors may assist reviewers by providing input to the manuscript in addition to the review results from reviewers.
5. Publication Decisions: The editorial board is responsible for deciding which submitted articles should be published. The validation of the work and its importance to researchers and readers must always guide such decisions. Editors may be guided by the journal’s editorial policies and constrained by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
6. Review of Manuscripts: Editors must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated for originality. Editors should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely, explain the peer-review process in the information for authors, and use appropriate peer reviewers with sufficient expertise while avoiding reviewers with conflicts of interest.

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer reviewers assist editors in making editorial decisions. Through editorial communication with authors, reviewers may also assist authors in improving their manuscripts.
2. Criteria of Reviewers: Reviewers, both local and international, should have a paper or manuscript published in an international journal indexed by Scopus, especially on topics related to community engagement. Reviewers should also have expertise or publication experience relevant to the manuscript being reviewed. Alternatively, reviewers should have experience in community engagement programs with a similar theme.
3. Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
4. Confidentiality: Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. It must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any authors, companies, or institutions related to the papers.
6. Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by relevant citations. Reviewers should also inform the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
7. Period of Reviewing: Reviewers should review the manuscript within 1 to 2 weeks. The number of reviewers for each manuscript is at least two reviewers, depending on the decision of the editor-in-charge.

Reboiler: Journal of Chemical Engineering is committed to maintaining the integrity, transparency, and accountability of scholarly publication. All parties involved in the publication process are expected to uphold ethical standards and contribute to a fair and responsible academic publishing environment.