Information For Authors




The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society of society-owned or sponsored journals.

An important role of the publisher is support the extensive efforts of journal editors, and the often unsung volunteer work undertaken by peer reviewers in maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. It is a tribute to scholarly practice that the system works well and problems are comparatively rare. The publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process and is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practices are followed.

Department of Chemistry takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record very seriously. Our journal programs record "the minutes of science" and we recognize our responsibilities as the keeper of those "minutes" in all our policies, including the guidelines we have adopted to support editors, reviewers and authors in performing their ethical duties. 

We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, Department of Chemistry will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors. Finally, we are working closely with other publishers and industry associations to set standards for best practices on ethical matters, errors and retractions and are prepared to provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.


Publication decisions
The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.

Fair play
An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

The editor and any 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.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
• Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
• Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
• Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
• Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
• It should be ensured that the peer-review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal. Items in sponsored supplements should be accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and not be influenced by commercial considerations. 
• Non-peer reviewed sections of their journal should be clearly identified. 

Involvement and cooperation in investigations
An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.


Contribution to Editorial Decisions 
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Department of Chemistry shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity 
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources 
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. 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 of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.


Reporting standards 
Authors of 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 detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial ‘opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such. 

Data Access and Retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication. 

Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. 

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
An author should not in general 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 behaviour and is unacceptable.
In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. 

Acknowledgement 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. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services. 

Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. 

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed. 

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 be disclosed.

Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible. 

Fundamental errors in published works 
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her 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. If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.



Format article
(1) The article can be in simple word format or in the Malaysian Journal of Catalysis template.
(2) The main manuscript has to be in the range between 3500-5000 words without references and abstract with font size 10, Times New Roman
(3) The corresponding author should provide an official institution email address in the manuscript.

A concise and actual abstract is required (in the range between 100 - 300 words). The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. An abstract is often presented separate from the article, so it must be able to stand alone. For this reason, References should be avoided, but if essential, they must be cited in full, without reference to the reference list. Also, non-standard or uncommon abbreviations should be avoided, but if essential they must be defined at their first mention in the abstract itself.

Immediately after the abstract, provide a maximum of 5 keywords, avoiding general and plural terms and multiple concepts (avoid, for example, "and," "of"). Be sparing with abbreviations: only abbreviations firmly established in the field may be eligible. Use comma (",") to separate the keywords. These keywords will be used for indexing purposes. 

Article structure : Subdivision - numbered sections 
Divide your article into clearly defined and numbered sections. Subsections should be numbered 1.1 (then 1.1.1, 1.1.2, ...), 1.2, etc. (the abstract is not included in section numbering). Use this numbering also for internal cross-referencing: do not just refer to "the text". Any subsection may be given a brief heading. Each heading should appear on its own separate line.

Reference Style 
Avoid extensive citations and discussion of published literature. Use ISI Journal Title Abbreviation which can be found at References should be individually numbered in the order in which they are cited in the text (including tables and figure captions assuming they will be located where they are first mentioned in the text), and listed in numerical sequence on separate sheets at the end of the paper, typed in double spacing. The numbers (no alphabetical characters) should appear in the text at the appropriate places in square brackets [ ]. In the reference list, periodicals [1], books [2], multiauthor books with editors [3], proceedings [4], and patents [5] should be cited in accordance with the following examples:

for Journal
[1] M. Hataka, H. Hattori, T. Imai, Appl. Catal. A-Gen 121 (1995) 1.

for Book :
[2] Bragg, An Investigation on Promoted Iron Catalysts for the Synthesis of Ammonia, Jul. Giellerups Forlag, Copenhagen, 1968, p. 72. 
[3] M.V. Sargent, F.M. Albert, in: A.R. Katrizky, C.W. Rees (Eds.), Comprehensive Heterocyclic Chemistry, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1977, p. 599.

for Proceedings :
[4] F.E. Lucas, M. Karger, F. Probst, B. Schutter, in: P. Jena, C.B. Satterthwaite (Eds.), Electronic Structure and Properties of Hydrogen in Metals, Proc. NATO Int. Symp., Richmond, VA, 4-6 March 1982, Plenum, New York, 1983, p. 581. 

for IP/Patent :
[5] J. Santiesteban, US Patent 3 972 983 (1986), to Mobil Oil Corporation.

for Magazine Articles:
[6] S. Begley, A. Murr, Which of these is not causing global warming? A. Sport  utility vehicles; B. Rice fields; C. Increased solar output. Newsweek (2007, July 2), 150(2), 48-50.

for Newspaper Articles (unsigned and signed):
[7] M. Landler, Bush’s Greenhouse Gas Plan Throws Europe, New York Times (2007, June 2), p. A7.

Figure and Table
The Figures should be Borderless Chart-Area.

Revision Manuscript
Revised manuscripts should be returned including revision notes. The revision notes should address the issues raised in the referee report and clearly state per page (indicate paragraph and line) which changes have been made. Additional materials may be requested at the discretion of the editor.

Detail format 

  • Title : Font size 13, Arial
  • Abstract : 100-300 words with Font size 8, Times New Roman
  • Size Graphical Abstract : Max 3.5x5.5 cm 
  • Keywords : 3-5 words  
  • Content : 3500-5000 words without references and abstract with font size 10, Times New Roman 
  • The total number of figure, scheme and table is not more than 8 
  • Reference : Font size 8, Times New Roman
  • To insert graphics within the text or as a figure, chart, scheme, or table, create a new line and insert the graphic where desired. If your graphic is not visible, ensure that the Word Style is “Normal” with an automatic height adjustment. If the size of the artwork needs to be adjusted, re-size the artwork in your graphics program and re-paste the artwork into the template (maximum width for single-column artwork, 3.3 in. (8.5 cm); maximum width for double-column artwork, 7 in. (17.8 cm))