Peer Review Policy

NanoScyentist operates double-blind peer review: the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors, throughout the process.

Initial Assessment

The editor first checks each manuscript against the author guidelines. A manuscript may be returned without review if it falls outside the journal's scope, lacks scientific rigour, is poorly presented, is not properly anonymised, or shows unacceptable similarity to existing work.

Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass screening are sent to at least two reviewers, selected for their expertise and publication record. Reviewers must have no conflict of interest with the authors and are drawn from different institutions and, where possible, different countries.

Review Reports

Reviewers assess the manuscript and recommend one of four outcomes. Where reports conflict, or a report is significantly delayed, the editor may seek an additional opinion. Reviewer comments are sent to the authors with identifying details removed.

Decisions

Accept

The manuscript is publishable as it stands, subject to copyediting.

Minor revision

Publishable once specific, limited points are addressed.

Major revision

Substantive changes are required. The revised manuscript is normally returned to the reviewers.

Reject

The manuscript is not suitable for publication in NanoScyentist.

The final decision rests with the editor, who considers the reviewers' recommendations together with the authors' responses.

Author Responses

Authors must address every reviewer comment, explaining the changes made or, where they disagree, giving their reasons. Revisions are returned as a reply to the decision email.

Timelines

The stages and typical durations are set out in the Editorial Workflow.