Peer Review Process

The Journal of Nanomaterials and Applications (JNA) adopts a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and scientific integrity of all published articles.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the Editorial Office and the Editor-in-Chief to determine:

Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
Originality and scientific significance
Compliance with submission guidelines

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

JNA follows a double-blind peer review process, where:

Authors do not know the identity of reviewers
Reviewers do not know the identity of authors

This ensures fairness, objectivity, and unbiased evaluation.

3. Reviewer Assignment

Each manuscript is typically assigned to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.

Reviewers are selected based on:

Academic expertise
Publication record
Previous reviewing experience
4. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

Scientific originality and novelty
Methodological rigor (experimental, simulation, or theoretical)
Clarity and organization of the manuscript
Validity of results and conclusions
Relevance to nanomaterials and their applications
5. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewers’ comments, the Editor will make one of the following decisions:

Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject

Authors are required to respond to all reviewer comments in a structured and detailed manner.

6. Revision Process
Revised manuscripts must include a point-by-point response
All changes should be clearly highlighted
The revised version may be sent back to reviewers for further evaluation
7. Final Decision and Publication

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on acceptance.
Accepted manuscripts proceed to:

Copyediting
Typesetting
Proofreading
8. Ethical Standards

JNA adheres to international publishing ethics, including:

Confidentiality of submitted manuscripts
Conflict of interest disclosure
Prevention of plagiarism and duplicate submission
9. Review Timeline (Recommended)
Initial screening: 3–5 days
Peer review: 2–4 weeks
First decision: 4–6 weeks