Reviewer Guideline

General Guidance

The main goal of peer review in the Journal of Nano Materials Impact (NanoMatImp) is to give the Editor the necessary information to make a fair, evidence-based decision that aligns with NanoMatImp's editorial standards. Review reports should assist authors in improving their manuscripts for potential publication acceptance. If a recommendation to reject the paper is given, the reports should outline the main weaknesses of the research to aid authors in preparing their manuscript for submission to another journal.

We recognize that time is a precious resource and express our gratitude to our reviewers for dedicating their valuable time and expertise to upholding the standards of NanoMatImp.

To acknowledge the efforts of our reviewers in peer review, NanoMatImp offers the option to document peer review activity in the ORCID record or via the Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service, in full compliance with our review policy.

Manuscripts undergo pre-screening to ensure they meet the NanoMatImp's quality, relevance, and interest criteria. If a reviewer is unable to assess a manuscript due to time constraints or lack of expertise, they should promptly notify us so that an alternative reviewer can be assigned without causing undue delays. A brief extension to the review deadline can be considered if necessary; please inform us if such an extension is needed. While suggestions for alternative reviewers are welcome, reviewers should refrain from directly contacting potential substitutes to maintain confidentiality. Unless an extension request is submitted to the editorial office, we assume that reports will be submitted by the deadline.

Reviewers may be requested to assess a revised manuscript; however, we will not request a re-review if we believe the authors have not adequately addressed the reviewers' feedback.

Reviewers are expected to follow NanoMatImp's author policies concerning conflicts of interest. Authors must disclose any financial or commercial conflicts of interest, or state if none exist.

We encourage reviewers to ensure that authors provide all necessary information for evaluating methods, results, and conclusions. Thorough and accurate reporting of research allows readers to properly assess, replicate, and utilize the findings.

Peer reviewers should adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers.

Confidential comments to the Editor are welcome, but they must not contradict the main points in the report for the authors

The Responsibility of the Peer Reviewer

1. Before you make a decision to accept or decline an invitation to review, it’s crucial to reflect on the following aspects:

  • Expertise Alignment: Does the article fall within your domain of expertise? Accept the invitation only if you are confident in providing a review that is both thorough and of high quality.
  • Conflict of Interest: Do you have any potential conflicts of interest? Transparency is key - make sure to disclose any conflicts to the editor when you respond.
  • Time Commitment: Reviewing can be a significant undertaking. Before you commit, ensure you have sufficient time to complete the review by the given deadline.
  • Understanding the Review Process: If you’re unfamiliar with the reviewing process or wish to learn more, consider exploring the free tutorials available on the Elsevier Researcher Academy. The new Certified Peer Reviewer course is particularly helpful.
  • It’s important to respond to the invitation promptly, even if you decide to decline. Any delay in your response slows down the review process, leading to longer waiting times for the author. If you do decide to decline, it would be beneficial to the process if you could suggest alternative reviewers.
  • Remember, your role as a reviewer is integral to maintaining the quality and integrity of the scientific literature. Your expertise and dedication contribute significantly to the advancement of your field.

2. Understand the Scope: Before you start, understand the scope of the manuscript and NanoMatImp. Make sure the paper aligns with the NanoMatImp’s focus and standards.

3. Initial Screening: Check the paper’s structure. It should have a clear abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion, and references.

4. Check the Methodology: Ensure the research methods are sound and ethical. The methodology should be clearly explained so that the study could be replicated.

5. Evaluate the Results: The results should be clearly presented and relevant to the research question. Check for any errors in data analysis.

6. Read the Discussion and Conclusion: The discussion should interpret the results in light of the research question. The conclusion should summarize the study and suggest future research.

7. Check the References: Ensure all cited sources are relevant and properly referenced.

8. Provide Constructive Feedback: When writing your review, be polite and constructive. Point out strengths as well as areas for improvement.

9. Make a Recommendation: Based on your review, recommend whether the paper should be accepted, revised, or rejected.
Remember, your role as a reviewer is to help maintain the quality and integrity of the scientific literature. Be thorough, fair, and respectful in your review.
This is a basic guide and the process may vary depending on the specific NanoMatImp’s guidelines. Always refer to NanoMatImp’s specific guidelines for reviewers.

Conflict of Interest

NanoMatImp aims to ensure that our chosen reviewers are experts in the relevant field and are free from any conflicts of interest.

Reviewers must assess if they have any conflicts of interest that could affect the impartiality of their review (especially regarding any Company or commercial product mentioned in the article). If the conflict is significant enough to compromise the reviewer's objectivity, they should decline the review invitation. For clarification on what constitutes a significant conflict, please reach out to the Editorial Office before accepting the invitation.

Furthermore, reviewers should maintain impartiality regardless of the authors' nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, or other personal characteristics, as well as the origin of the manuscript or any commercial considerations. In case of a competing interest or a personal relationship (such as collaboration or mentorship) with any of the authors, inform NanoMatImp and seek guidance. Avoid reviewing the manuscript or related materials until receiving further instructions to prevent the review request from being revoked.

Registered Reports

This guide for reviewers provides information on the peer-review process for Registered Reports. If you have been invited to review for a Discover NanoMatImp and have any questions, please feel free to contact the NanoMatImp’s Editorial Team.

The review process for Registered Reports is split into two stages. In stage 1, reviewers evaluate study proposals before data collection. In stage 2, reviewers assess the complete study, including results and interpretation.

Stage 1: Initial manuscript submission and review, manuscripts will consist of an Introduction, Methods (including proposed analyses), and Pilot Data (if applicable). When evaluating papers at stage 1, reviewers are asked to consider:

  • The significance of the research question(s).
  • The logic, rationale, and plausibility of the proposed hypotheses.
  • The validity and feasibility of the methodology and analysis pipeline (including statistical power analysis when relevant).
  • The clarity and level of methodological detail are needed for the exact replication of the proposed experimental procedures and analysis pipeline.
  • Whether the authors have pre-specified adequate outcome-neutral tests to ensure that the results obtained can test the stated hypotheses, including positive controls and quality checks.

After stage 1 peer review, manuscripts will be Submission Accepted, Revision Requirement, or Decline Submission. Manuscripts that pass peer review will receive a Submission Accepted, indicating that the article will be published once the manuscript accomplishes NanoMatImp requirements and the Editorial acceptance.

Stage 2: For the manuscripts that got a Revision Requirement decision, the author(s) should follow and answer all the revisions or comments from the reviewers and then submit the Revised manuscript to take a new round of review.