Guidelines for reviewers

The review process is an important aspect of the publication process of an article. It helps the editor in making decision on an article and also enables the author to improve the manuscript. The editorial team of Journal of New Technology and Materials has formulated the following guidelines for reviewers to ensure that the peer-review process offered by JNTM is as fair and thorough as possible, without being unnecessarily demanding of both reviewers and authors. The primary aim of the guidelines is to ensure that reviewers know their responsibilities and can prepare constructive critiques that will assist authors in their scientific research regardless of the outcome (acceptance/rejection) of the peer-review process.

The peer reviewer is responsible for critically reading and evaluating a manuscript in their areas of research interests and specialities, and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their submission. It is appropriate for the Peer Reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, ways to improve the strength and quality of the work, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.

Before Reviewing, please consider the following:

Does the article you are being asked to review match your expertise?
If you receive a manuscript that covers a topic that does not sufficiently match your area of expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Please feel free to recommend alternate reviewer.
Do you have time to review the paper?

Finished reviews of an article should be completed within two weeks. If you do not think you can complete the review within this time frame, please let the editor know and if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer. If you have agreed to review a paper but will no longer be able to finish the work before the deadline, please contact the editor as soon as possible.

Are there any potential conflicts of interests?

While conflicts of interest will not disqualify you from reviewing the manuscript, it is important to disclose all conflicts of interest to the editors before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interests, please do not hesitate to contact the receiving editorial office.

When reviewing the article, please keep the following in mind:

Content quality and originality
Provide specific, constructive criticism that gives clear guidance to the authors, especially if recommending revision i.e., it should be clear to the authors precisely what experiments/revisions need to be undertaken to satisfy the reviewer’s concerns
Do not be overly demanding, remember the revision timeframe is only 3 months (6 months if especially time-consuming experiments have been requested)
Make a clear recommendation: is the manuscript worth revising?
Comment on whether the presentation/language hinders/confuses an otherwise potentially good paper
Treat all information as confidential
Declare all conflicts of interest
Provide the names of all involved in reviewing the manuscript
Detail any scientific misconduct detected
For revised manuscripts, do not raise any new issues that could have been commented on in the original review

When preparing the report, peer reviewers should:

bear in mind that the editor is looking to them for subject knowledge, good judgement, and an honest and fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the work and the manuscript.
make clear at the start of their review if they have been asked to address only specific parts or aspects of a manuscript and indicate which these are.
Adhere to the guidelines provided by the journals regarding the specific feedback expected, and unless there are valid reasons not to do so, follow the prescribed organization for presenting feedback.
be objective and constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript.
not make derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations.
be specific in their criticisms, and provide evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements such as, ‘this work has been done before’, to help editors in their evaluation and decision and in fairness to the authors.
remember it is the authors’ paper and not attempt to rewrite it to their own preferred style if it is basically sound and clear; suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, important.
be aware of the sensitivities surrounding language issues that are due to the authors writing in a language that is not their own, and phrase the feedback appropriately and with due respect.
make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.
not prepare their report in such a way or include comments that suggest the review has been done by another person.
not prepare their report in a way that reflects badly or unfairly on another person.
not make unfair negative comments or include unjustified criticisms of any competitors’ work that is mentioned in the manuscript.
ensure their comments and recommendations for the editor are consistent with their report for the authors; most feedback should be put in the report for the authors.
confidential comments to the editor should not be a place for denigration or false accusation, done in the knowledge that the authors will not see these comments.
not suggest that authors include citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work merely to increase the reviewer’s (or their associates’) citation count or to enhance the visibility of their or their associates’ work; suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons.