Guide for Editors and Reviewers

The Journal of Nanomaterials and Applications (JNA) relies on the expertise and integrity of editors and reviewers to ensure the quality, credibility, and scientific impact of published research. This guide outlines the responsibilities, standards, and procedures for editorial board members and reviewers.

JNA follows the ethical principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors play a central role in maintaining the academic quality and integrity of the journal.

Editorial Duties

Editors are responsible for:

  • Evaluating manuscript suitability and scope
  • Assigning qualified reviewers
  • Making fair and unbiased decisions
  • Ensuring a timely and efficient review process

Editorial Decision Criteria

Decisions must be based on:

  • Scientific quality and originality
  • Methodological rigor
  • Relevance to the journal’s scope
  • Ethical compliance

Confidentiality

Editors must:

  • Treat all submissions as confidential
  • Not disclose information to unauthorized parties

Conflict of Interest

Editors must:

  • Recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where conflicts exist
  • Assign alternative editors when necessary

2. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are essential to maintaining the scientific standards of JNA.

Reviewer Duties

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and detailed feedback
  • Evaluate the scientific merit and clarity
  • Recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection

Confidentiality

  • Manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents
  • Content must not be shared or used for personal advantage

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline review if:

  • There is a personal or professional conflict
  • They cannot provide an unbiased assessment

Timeliness

  • Reviews should be completed within the assigned timeframe (typically 2–4 weeks)

3. Peer Review Workflow

JNA follows a structured double-blind peer review process:

Step 1: Initial Screening

  • Editorial check for scope, format, and ethics

Step 2: Reviewer Assignment

  • At least two independent reviewers

Step 3: Review Process

  • Evaluation based on scientific quality and contribution

Step 4: Decision

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

4. Review Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess:

  • Originality and novelty
  • Technical quality and methodology
  • Clarity of presentation
  • Validity of results and conclusions
  • Relevance to nanomaterials and applications

⚖️ 5. Ethical Standards

Editors and reviewers must ensure compliance with:

Publication Ethics

  • No plagiarism
  • No data fabrication or falsification
  • Proper citation and attribution

Misconduct Handling

If ethical concerns arise:

  • Notify the Editor-in-Chief
  • Follow COPE guidelines
  • Maintain confidentiality during investigation

6. Revision Handling

Editors should:

  • Ensure authors respond to all reviewer comments
  • Verify that revisions meet required standards
  • Send revised manuscripts for re-review if necessary

7. Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief:

  • Makes the final decision
  • Ensures consistency and fairness
  • Approves accepted manuscripts for publication

⏱ 8. Timeline Expectations

  • Initial decision: 1–2 weeks
  • Review process: 2–4 weeks
  • Final decision: 4–6 weeks

Editors and reviewers are expected to adhere to these timelines.

9. Communication Guidelines

Editors and reviewers should:

  • Maintain professional and respectful communication
  • Provide clear and constructive comments
  • Avoid offensive or biased language

10. Editorial Independence

All editorial decisions must be:

  • Independent of the publisher
  • Free from commercial or personal influence

11. Data and Confidentiality

Editors and reviewers must:

  • Protect confidential data
  • Not use unpublished materials for personal research