Reviewer Guidelines
Best practices for providing thorough, constructive, and timely peer reviews of nanotechnology manuscripts submitted to our journal.
Excellence in Peer Review
Quality peer review is essential for maintaining rigorous scientific standards in nanotechnology publishing and advancing the field through careful evaluation and constructive feedback. These comprehensive guidelines help reviewers provide thorough, balanced evaluations that improve manuscript quality while supporting author development and scientific integrity.
Evaluate all manuscripts across multiple essential dimensions to provide comprehensive scientific assessment. Focus primary attention on substantive scientific issues affecting validity and significance while also noting presentation concerns that diminish clarity or accessibility for readers.
Scientific Validity Assessment
- Sound experimental design and methodology
- Appropriate analytical and statistical methods
- Sufficient data supporting conclusions
- Reproducible procedures and adequate detail
- Proper controls and comparison conditions
- Logical interpretation of results
Significance and Novelty
- Novelty of contributions to nanotechnology
- Clear advancement over prior published work
- Relevance to journal scope and readership
- Potential research and application impact
- Appropriate context within the literature
- Timeliness and current research relevance
Presentation Quality
- Clear, professional writing and organization
- Appropriate high-quality figures and tables
- Complete experimental methods description
- Adequate and accurate reference citation
- Logical manuscript structure and flow
- Appropriate length for content presented
Accept review invitations only when you have appropriate subject expertise and sufficient available time to provide a thorough, high-quality evaluation. Complete reviews within the requested timeframe, typically 2-3 weeks from acceptance. Contact the handling editor promptly if circumstances prevent meeting the agreed deadline so alternative arrangements can be made.
Constructive feedback approach: Frame all criticisms constructively with specific, actionable suggestions for improvement rather than general complaints. Avoid dismissive, harsh, or personal language that discourages authors. Your goal is helping authors strengthen their work and contribution to the scientific literature, not demonstrating superiority.
Manuscripts under review are strictly confidential documents. Never share manuscript content with colleagues, use ideas from unpublished manuscripts for your own research, discuss manuscripts outside the formal review process, or acknowledge participation in specific reviews publicly. Report conflicts of interest to the editor immediately upon recognizing them, and report any suspected misconduct such as plagiarism, fabrication, or ethical violations through proper channels.
Become a Peer Reviewer
Join our reviewer community for nanotechnology research evaluation.
Register Now
