Publishing Strategy12 min read•Updated Jun 7, 2026

Chemical Engineering Journal Response to Reviewers: How to Write a Rebuttal That Wins (2026)

How to write a point-by-point response to reviewers for the Chemical Engineering Journal, where reviewers grade the engineering advance, mechanism, and scale-up relevance over more materials characterization.

By Senior Researcher, Chemical Engineering•June 7, 2026

Author contextSenior Researcher, Chemical Engineering. Experience with Chemical Engineering Journal, Applied Energy, Fuel.View profile

Readiness scan

Before you submit to Chemical Engineering Journal, pressure-test the manuscript.

Run the Free Readiness Scan to catch the issues most likely to stop the paper before peer review.

Check my manuscriptAnthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.See example reports

Impact factor13.2Clarivate JCR

Acceptance rate~30%Overall selectivity

Time to decision~60 days to first decisionFirst decision

What makes this journal worth targeting

IF 13.2 puts Chemical Engineering Journal in a visible tier — citations from papers here carry real weight.
Scope specificity matters more than impact factor for most manuscript decisions.
Acceptance rate of ~~30% means fit determines most outcomes.

When to look elsewhere

When your paper sits at the edge of the journal's stated scope — borderline fit rarely improves after submission.
If timeline matters: Chemical Engineering Journal takes ~~60 days to first decision. A faster-turnaround journal may suit a grant or job deadline better.
If open access is required by your funder, verify the journal's OA agreements before submitting.

Question	What to do
Use this page for	Building a point-by-point response that is easy for reviewers and editors to trust.
Start with	State the reviewer concern clearly, then pair each response with the exact evidence or revision.
Common mistake	Sounding defensive or abstract instead of specific about what changed.
Best next step	Turn the response into a visible checklist or matrix before you finalize the letter.

Quick answer: A Chemical Engineering Journal response to reviewers is built for CEJ's engineering bar. Reviewers grade the engineering advance, the mechanism, and the scale-up or process relevance, not more materials characterization. Upload a cover letter, a point-by-point document, a tracked-changes manuscript, and a clean version to Elsevier's Editorial Manager. Quote every comment, answer with action language, and cite the page and line of each change. CEJ averages about 2.0 revision rounds, and a major revision adds one round of 6 to 12 weeks.

Use this guide before you submit your Chemical Engineering Journal revision, because the format below maps each reviewer comment to a locatable change. The one rule that decides re-review speed: every response must give the page and line number that indicate where the change appears in the revised manuscript, never a vague "we have updated the paper." Updated June 7, 2026.

Run the Chemical Engineering Journal rebuttal readiness check, which flags missing page and line references automatically, or work through this guide manually. Need broader cluster context? See the Chemical Engineering Journal journal profile.

The Manusights Chemical Engineering Journal rebuttal scan. This guide tells you what CEJ reviewers look for in a response to reviewers. The scan tells you whether YOUR response and revised manuscript pass that check before you upload the revision. We have reviewed manuscripts and rebuttals targeting the Chemical Engineering Journal and peer Elsevier engineering venues; the named patterns below are the same ones CEJ handling editors and outside reviewers flag. It checks the engineering-advance, mechanism, baseline, and scale-up threads specifically. Backed by a 60-day money-back guarantee, your manuscript is never used to train any AI model and is deleted within 24 hours.

Editorial detail (for revision calibration). The Chemical Engineering Journal runs on Elsevier's Editorial Manager, reports a 2024 impact factor near 13.2 (Q1, broad chemical engineering), and accepts roughly 30 percent of submissions. Desk decisions often land inside 1 to 2 weeks, and SciRev community data puts the first review round near 1.7 months with about 2.8 reports per paper.

Before quoting any name in your CEJ response letter, confirm the current Editors-in-Chief and handling-editor roster on the journal's editorial-team page, because Elsevier rotates section editors and the masthead changes between revision rounds. We reviewed the CEJ ScienceDirect page, the guide for authors, and the SciRev community review record (accessed 2026-06-07).

The named cultural quirk that reshapes every CEJ rebuttal: this is an engineering journal. Reviewers weight whether your work teaches an engineering lesson that generalizes, and whether the mechanism and scale-up hold, far more than whether you ran another round of characterization.

What does a Chemical Engineering Journal response to reviewers require?

The Chemical Engineering Journal requires a detailed point-by-point response on revision, uploaded to Editorial Manager alongside a tracked-changes manuscript and a separate clean version, with a cover letter to the handling editor. Because CEJ grades the engineering advance and the rigor of the mechanism and process analysis, the response document carries the paper.

A CEJ rebuttal earns another round rather than an acceptance when it does any of three things: skips comments, argues that the material is novel instead of demonstrating an engineering contribution that generalizes, or claims changes without page and line references. CEJ also routes about 2.8 reviewers per paper, often industry-experienced engineers, so the response has to cover more independent threads than a two-reviewer chemistry journal would demand.

Element	What the Chemical Engineering Journal expects	What gets flagged
Structure	Point-by-point, each reviewer comment quoted	Free-form prose summarizing all comments together
Tone	Professional, firm only on engineering rigor and scope fit	Defensive on every minor stylistic suggestion
Coverage	Every comment from every reviewer answered	Selective answers that ignore the harder reviewer
Evidence basis	Mechanism, kinetics, mass transfer, fair state-of-the-art comparison, scale-up	More characterization (XRD, SEM, BET) with no engineering reading
Specific changes	Page and line numbers for each manuscript revision	"We have updated the manuscript" without citations

Source: CEJ guide for authors on ScienceDirect plus Elsevier guidance on responding to reviewers, accessed 2026-06-07.

The Chemical Engineering Journal reviewer culture you are writing into

The Chemical Engineering Journal is Elsevier's broad, application-oriented flagship for chemical engineering, and its reviewer culture is unusual in three ways that change how you write a rebuttal.

1. CEJ is an engineering journal, not a chemistry venue

CEJ judges work as engineering, not as pure materials science. Its newer section criteria make the bar explicit: the Engineered Materials section asks for novelty in materials design or processing toward a particular application goal, a practical demonstration of that application, and demonstrated or feasible scalability.

So a reviewer is rarely asking whether your material is interesting. They are asking whether your work teaches an engineering lesson that generalizes beyond the one sample you tested. A rebuttal that argues "this material is novel" answers a question CEJ reviewers are not asking. The winning rebuttal shows the engineering advance is real, the mechanism is understood, and the contribution generalizes.

2. Mechanism and quantitative analysis carry the most weight

CEJ reviewers weight mechanism and quantitative engineering analysis heavily, and the journal draws on a broad pool of reviewers, often industry-experienced engineers, who grade whether you explain why the system works rather than only that it works. The most common revision requests are for one of these:

a mechanism study, kinetics, or thermodynamics
a mass-transfer analysis
computational modeling such as CFD or kinetic simulation that supports the experiments
a fair comparison to the state of the art

When a manuscript reports "we optimized the conditions and it performed well" with extensive characterization but no engineering reading of why, the reviewer treats the gap as the paper not yet meeting the bar. CEJ reviewers are also specific about the baseline. The single sharpest objection we see is a performance claim made against a weak or absent comparison to the technology already used industrially, which makes a modest result look like an advance.

3. Scale-up and process relevance increasingly decide the round

Scale-up and process relevance now separate a passing CEJ revision from a failing one, because engineering claims are testable only when anchored in a realistic implementation pathway. A result that is a lab-only curiosity, with no scale-up consideration, no economic or life-cycle reading, and no pilot or industrial context, faces extra reviewer scrutiny on whether the claimed benefit would survive contact with a real process. That scrutiny often extends the revision cycle by one full round.

SciRev community data puts the CEJ first round near 1.7 months, with about 2.8 reports and 2.0 revision rounds per accepted paper, and immediate rejections near 8 days. The combination, engineering-advance-first plus mechanism-heavy plus baseline-scrutinized plus scale-up-checked, means a thin CEJ response does not just risk a sharper reviewer note. It costs you months on the next round.

The page-and-line rule: cite the location of every change

State the exact page and line number for each manuscript revision, and reference the specific figure, table, or supplementary file you changed. This is the single most-cited rebuttal failure at the Chemical Engineering Journal and across Elsevier's engineering portfolio.

Elsevier's own CALM guidance (Comprehend, Answer, List, Mindful) is explicit on the point: be clear about how you responded, paste the updated text below the reviewer comment, and state where it fits with a page and line number. A reviewer who has to hunt for your change reads it as evasion. A reviewer who can jump straight to page 7, lines 18 to 24, and see the new kinetics analysis finishes faster and re-reviews more favorably.

Two CEJ-specific habits keep this clean. Use the line numbers from the revised file, not the original, since the handling editor opens the tracked-changes version. And flag when a change lives in a Supplementary figure rather than the main text, because CEJ reviewers often request the engineering reading there.

The rule that decides re-review speed

Never write "we have addressed this in the manuscript" without a location. Every CEJ reply needs a page and line number from the revised file. A reviewer reconciling a kinetics or scale-up comment has to find the exact edit in seconds, or the round slips.

Reviewer-text vs author-response typography

Make the reviewer's words and your reply visually distinct. Put each reviewer comment in bold or a colored text box, and keep your response in plain regular text directly beneath it. A clean convention is reviewer comments in black italic and author responses in plain blue, with quoted revised-manuscript text in an indented box.

At CEJ this is not cosmetic. The handling editor and the two-to-three reviewers scan dozens of these letters, and a rebuttal where comment and reply blur together costs you the attention you need. You want every engineering-advance, mechanism, and scale-up thread to read as answered at a glance. An undifferentiated wall of text hides exactly the kinetics or comparison edit you most want a reviewer to see.

The copyable Chemical Engineering Journal rebuttal template

Reviewers at the Chemical Engineering Journal read your point-by-point document alongside the tracked-changes file, so a clean, scannable structure is doing real work. Copy this skeleton, then replace the bracketed text with your own changes. Keep the reviewer text and your reply in two distinct fonts or colors, and keep every page and line reference concrete.

Dear Editor,

We thank the handling editor and the reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript "the manuscript title" (Manuscript ID CEJ-D-[ID]). We have revised the paper to address every comment and provide a detailed point-by-point response below.

The most substantive changes are: (1) we added a mechanism study and kinetic analysis that explains why the system performs as it does (new Section 3.3 and Figure 5, page 9, lines 4-31), (2) we added a fair comparison to the state-of-the-art process already used industrially (new Table 4, page 11, lines 6-29), and (3) we added a scale-up and process-relevance analysis, including an estimate of energy and material intensity (new Section 4.2, page 14, lines 14-40).

Reviewer comments are quoted verbatim; our responses follow each comment, and revised text locations are given by page and line of the revised manuscript. A tracked-changes version and a clean version are uploaded separately.

==================================================
Reviewer 1
==================================================

Comment 1: "The work reads as materials characterization. The engineering
advance and the mechanism are not established."
Response: We agree the engineering reading was underdeveloped. We added a
kinetics and mass-transfer analysis explaining the rate-limiting step (new
Section 3.3 and Figure 5, page 9, lines 4-31), and we revised the discussion
to state the generalizable engineering lesson rather than only the per-sample
result (page 10, lines 3-22).

Comment 2: "The performance is compared only to the authors' own baseline,
not to the technology in current industrial use."
Response: We added a fair comparison to the conventional process and to two
recent literature systems under matched conditions (new Table 4, page 11,
lines 6-29), and we tempered the abstract claim to match what the comparison
supports (page 1, line 9).

==================================================
Reviewer 2
==================================================

Comment 1: "There is no scale-up consideration; this looks like a lab-only
result."
Response: We added a scale-up and process-relevance analysis with an estimate
of energy and material intensity and the realistic implementation pathway
(new Section 4.2, page 14, lines 14-40), and we discuss the gap between the
lab result and a pilot-scale projection (page 15, lines 1-19).

Comment 2: "The reproducibility of the key result is unclear."
Response: We clarified that n = [N] independent runs and added error bars and
the statistical analysis to the figure and Methods (page 8, lines 12-26, and
Supplementary Table 3).

We believe the revised manuscript now addresses all concerns. We thank the
reviewers again for feedback that materially strengthened the engineering
contribution and the rigor of the paper.

Sincerely,
Corresponding author, on behalf of all authors

The four structural tokens that make a rebuttal complete are present here: the opening to the editor, the Reviewer 1 / Reviewer 2 split, explicit action verbs (revised, added, clarified, expanded), and page and line references on every change. A response missing any of these reads as incomplete to a CEJ handling editor.

Tone calibration: how to phrase the hard replies

The Chemical Engineering Journal reviewers respond to firm, evidence-anchored language and react badly to defensiveness. Elsevier's CALM guidance (Comprehend, Answer, List, Mindful) says the same thing: stay polite and objective, thank reviewers for identifying weaknesses, and disagree only when the counter-argument is backed by evidence. Calibrate every response toward the stronger column.

Bad (defensive or vague)	Better (substantive and gracious)
"The reviewer misunderstood our engineering contribution."	"We see how the contribution could read as characterization and added the mechanism and kinetics that establish the engineering advance (Section 3.3, page 9)."
"Our material is clearly novel and important."	"We added a fair comparison to the conventional industrial process (Table 4, page 11) so the engineering advance is shown, not just asserted."
"A mechanism study is unnecessary for this work."	"We added the requested kinetics and mass-transfer analysis (Section 3.3, page 9); it explains the rate-limiting step the reviewer asked about."
"We have updated the manuscript."	"We revised the results discussion (page 10, lines 3-22) to report the generalizable engineering lesson against the baseline."
"Scale-up is outside the scope of this study."	"We added a scale-up and process-relevance analysis with energy and material intensity estimates (Section 4.2, page 14) so the implementation pathway is explicit."

Source: Manusights pre-submission review of Chemical Engineering Journal rebuttals, 2025 cohort.

The pattern that works is consistent: concede where the reviewer is right, do the engineering work, point to the exact change, and push back only on a request that is genuinely out of scope, always with a reason and an alternative.

You can pressure-test individual lines with three quick contrasts:

Replace "the reviewer is wrong that we need a mechanism" with "we added the kinetic analysis the reviewer identified, with a stated rate-limiting step (Figure 5, page 9)."
Replace "the engineering significance is obvious from the introduction" with "we strengthened the engineering significance with a fair industrial comparison and a scale-up estimate (Section 4.2, page 14) rather than a novelty claim."
Replace "we disagree and made no change" with "we respectfully maintain our reactor configuration on physical grounds (page 9, lines 30-44) and added a sensitivity analysis so the rationale is explicit."

Key Insight

At the Chemical Engineering Journal, a major revision is a request for engineering evidence, not more characterization. When a reviewer questions the advance, adding another XRD figure does not move the decision; adding the mechanism, the fair baseline, and the scale-up reading does.

What our Chemical Engineering Journal rebuttal reviews surface

In our pre-submission review work with Chemical Engineering Journal submissions and rebuttals, three patterns generate the most consistent extra revision rounds. Each maps to a specific, named failure pattern in CEJ's engineering culture, and each is testable against your own response before you upload the revision.

Answering an engineering-advance question with more characterization. The most common and most expensive pattern in our Chemical Engineering Journal pre-submission reviews is a rebuttal that answers a request to establish the engineering advance by adding another characterization figure instead of the mechanism, kinetics, or comparison the reviewer wanted.

CEJ reviewers grade whether the work teaches a generalizable engineering lesson. So when the abstract claims a better catalyst, adsorbent, membrane, or reactor but the response adds more SEM, XRD, or BET to the results without a mechanistic reading, a reviewer reads the gap as the paper not meeting the bar.

In our reviews, rebuttals that add a kinetics or mass-transfer analysis, a clear rate-limiting step, and the generalizable lesson clear re-review; rebuttals that re-assert novelty earn another round. The fix is mechanical: add the requested mechanism in the methods and report the engineering reading, not another spectrum.

Missing the kinetics, mass-transfer, or process analysis the reviewer requested. The second failure pattern at the Chemical Engineering Journal is the revision that acknowledges a quantitative-engineering comment but never delivers it. The sharpest version we see is a performance claim whose data and methods compare the new system only to the authors' own weak baseline, never to the conventional process already used industrially, which makes a modest result look like an advance.

In our Chemical Engineering Journal pre-submission reviews, the rebuttals that fail here answer a mechanism or baseline comment with prose ("the mechanism is well known") instead of a kinetic model, a statistical comparison, or a fair table of state-of-the-art systems under matched conditions. The pattern that clears is concrete: add the analysis where the reviewer asks, add a fair comparison to the industrial baseline, and point the reviewer to the exact location in the revised methods.

A revision that still reads as pure materials science. The third pattern is specific to the Chemical Engineering Journal as an engineering venue. Authors defend a lab-only result without showing scale-up, process relevance, or a realistic implementation pathway, and they answer the two-to-three CEJ reviewers unevenly. Because CEJ weights whether the contribution would survive in a real process, an unscaled lab curiosity or a thinly answered skeptical reviewer is a common cause of the "concerns not properly addressed" outcome.

In our Chemical Engineering Journal pre-submission reviews, we flag a rebuttal whenever one of these is true: a requested scale-up estimate, economic reading, or pilot data is acknowledged but not actually added; a figure a reviewer questioned is defended without revision; or the harder reviewer's thread is answered more thinly than the friendly reviewer's.

The fix is to add the scale-up and process-relevance content, make the engineering consequence visible in the abstract and introduction, and answer every comment from every reviewer with an action verb and a page and line reference.

Add the mechanism, defend the baseline, show the scale-up, and cover every reviewer. That four-part discipline is what separates a Chemical Engineering Journal rebuttal that clears one revision round from one that stalls into a second or third. Check your Chemical Engineering Journal point-by-point response for these patterns before you submit.

Readiness check

Run the scan while Chemical Engineering Journal's requirements are in front of you.

See how this manuscript scores against Chemical Engineering Journal's requirements before you submit.

Check my readinessAnthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.See example reports

When to comply and when to push back

Situation	Recommended approach at the Chemical Engineering Journal
Reviewer asks for a mechanism, kinetics, or mass-transfer study	Comply. This is the highest-leverage fix; add the analysis and cite the page and line.
Reviewer asks for a fair comparison to the industrial state of the art	Comply. Add a matched-conditions comparison table; CEJ grades the baseline.
Reviewer flags a lab-only result with no scale-up	Comply. Add a scale-up estimate, economic or life-cycle reading, and the implementation pathway.
Reviewer questions reproducibility or statistics	Comply. Add replicates, error bars, and the statistical test to Methods.
Reviewer requests an experiment that is genuinely out of scope	Push back with a reason, add an alternative analysis, note the open question in the Discussion.
Reviewer raises a point a co-author disputes	Engage substantively, defend with evidence, accept refinements. The handling editor reads every thread.

Source: Manusights pre-submission reviews of Chemical Engineering Journal-targeted resubmissions, 2025 cohort.

How much work a Chemical Engineering Journal rebuttal actually takes

Authors consistently underestimate the new-engineering-evidence effort and overestimate the writing effort. This breakdown is about workload, not the journal's review pipeline; for the end-to-end decision schedule, see the Chemical Engineering Journal review time guide. This guide was last reviewed on June 7, 2026.

Rebuttal task	Where the effort goes	What it costs you
Reading and clustering reviewer reports	Finding the one engineering concern behind the comments	A day of careful reading, not a skim
Running the mechanism, kinetics, or scale-up analysis	The actual bar for a CEJ major revision	The bulk of the work, often several weeks
Building a fair state-of-the-art comparison	Matched conditions against the industrial baseline	Underestimated, and reviewers check it
Writing the point-by-point replies	One reply plus a page and line reference per comment	Less than authors fear once the data exist
Reconciling overlapping comments across reviewers	Same answer for every reviewer who raised a point	Skipped most often, and it shows

Source: Manusights pre-submission reviews of Chemical Engineering Journal resubmissions, 2025 cohort, last updated June 7, 2026.

Honest friction: rejection on revision is real

A major-revision invitation at the Chemical Engineering Journal is not a soft acceptance. The revised manuscript and your point-by-point response go back to the original reviewers, and the paper can still end in rejection after re-review if the new evidence does not establish the engineering advance. CEJ runs about 2.0 revision rounds per accepted paper, which tells you the journal does not rubber-stamp revisions.

Most rejections at this stage trace to one cause: the author answered a request to establish the engineering advance with more characterization. The second most common is a performance claim that, on re-review, still rests on a weak or absent comparison to the technology already in industrial use.

Think twice before you resubmit if any of these are true:

The response uses generic "we have addressed this" language with no page or line numbers.
A reviewer asked for the mechanism, kinetics, or a scale-up reading and you answered with another characterization figure.
The same comment from two reviewers got two different answers.
The revision still reads as pure materials science, with no engineering lesson that generalizes and no realistic implementation pathway.

When the core objection is genuinely that the engineering-significance bar is not met, the realistic path is not to argue. Accept a transfer to a better-fit Elsevier sibling such as Chemical Engineering Journal Advances, Separation and Purification Technology, or the Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering. Fixing these issues before resubmission is what keeps a second round from becoming a rejection.

Red flags a Chemical Engineering Journal reviewer spots in seconds

Before you upload, scan your own rebuttal for the patterns that draw an immediate re-review comment. Each is a specific, checkable thing in your draft, not a vague quality dimension.

A reply with no location. Any "we have revised the manuscript" with no page and line number reads as evasion the moment a reviewer cannot find the change.

More characterization where the engineering advance was questioned. A reviewer asked you to establish the mechanism or the generalizable lesson and the reply only adds another SEM or XRD figure.

This is the single most common cause of a third round at CEJ.

A performance claim with no fair baseline. The result is compared only to the authors' own weak control, never to the process already used industrially, so the advance is not demonstrated.

A revision that is still lab-only. No scale-up estimate, no economic or process reading, no implementation pathway, in a journal that grades whether the engineering would survive a real process.

How does this guide go beyond the Chemical Engineering Journal author guidelines?

The official guide for authors tells you to submit a point-by-point response and a tracked-changes manuscript through Editorial Manager. It does not tell you four things that decide the round:

CEJ grades the engineering advance over characterization.
The mechanism and a fair industrial baseline carry the decision.
Scale-up and process relevance increasingly separate a passing revision from a failing one.
The reviewer pool is often industry-experienced engineers reading for whether the lesson generalizes.

Those four facts change how you write every reply. The patterns above come from our pre-submission reviews of Chemical Engineering Journal rebuttals, and they are testable against your own draft today, not theoretical concerns.

Manusights internal pre-submission review corpus (2025 Chemical Engineering Journal cohort)

Frequently asked questions

Upload four files to Elsevier's Editorial Manager: a cover letter to the editor, a detailed point-by-point response document, a revised manuscript with changes tracked or highlighted, and a clean version. Open the response with a short note to the handling editor, then a Reviewer 1 / Reviewer 2 block. Quote each reviewer comment verbatim, answer with action language (revised, added, clarified, expanded), and cite the exact page and line of each change in the revised manuscript. CEJ routes about 2.8 reviewers per paper, so leave no comment unanswered.

A minor revision means reviewers want clarifications and small additions and usually no new experiments. A major revision means at least one reviewer wants new evidence of the engineering advance: a mechanism study, kinetics or mass-transfer analysis, a fair comparison to the state of the art, or scale-up and process relevance. CEJ averages about 2.0 revision rounds per accepted paper on SciRev community data, and a major revision typically adds one full round of 6 to 12 weeks.

Yes, but anchor the disagreement in the engineering advance, the mechanism, or the scale-up relevance, not in how interesting the material is. CEJ reviewers judge whether the work teaches an engineering lesson that generalizes beyond one sample. If a request would not change that, explain why with evidence, propose an alternative, and still make a clarifying edit. Defensive pushback on an engineering-significance or mechanism comment is the fastest way to earn another revision round.

Address every reviewer in full, acknowledge the disagreement explicitly, and let the revised manuscript reconcile it. CEJ submissions average about 2.8 review reports, and the handling editor reads every thread. Make the change that satisfies the stricter engineering-advance or mechanism concern, then explain to the other reviewer why that path keeps the contribution defensible. Answering the friendly reviewer thoroughly and the skeptical reviewer thinly is a common reason a revision fails.

Yes. A major revision is an invitation, not an acceptance. If reviewers conclude that an engineering-advance, mechanism, or scale-up concern was acknowledged but not actually fixed in the manuscript, the paper can be rejected on the next round. The realistic move when the engineering-significance bar genuinely cannot be met is to accept a transfer offer to an Elsevier sibling such as Chemical Engineering Journal Advances, Separation and Purification Technology, or the Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering rather than argue.

Chemical Engineering Journal on ScienceDirect (accessed 2026-06-07)
Chemical Engineering Journal reviews on SciRev (accessed 2026-06-07)
Elsevier, How to respond to reviewer comments the CALM way (accessed 2026-06-07)
PLOS Computational Biology, Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Response to Reviewers (Noble) (accessed 2026-06-07)
Nature Computational Science, on responding to peer review (accessed 2026-06-07)

Internal navigation

Where to go next

Start here

Chemical Engineering Journal journal guide

Same journal, next question

Supporting reads

Conversion step

Run a free manuscript preview

Back to all articles

Submitting to Chemical Engineering Journal?

Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.

Check my manuscript