Peer-review policy
All articles submitted to the editorial board are reviewed. The review procedure is focused on the most objective assessment of the content of a scientific article, determining its compliance with the journal's requirements, and provides for a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the article materials.
Only those articles that are valuable from a scientific point of view and contribute to solving current educational problems and tasks are accepted for publication.
The editorial team supports global standards for transparency in the double-blind review procedure.
The review process takes up to 6 weeks.
Initial manuscript evaluation
The Chief-of- Editor first evaluates all submitted manuscripts. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to at least two expert referees for reviewing.
Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will be informed within two weeks of receipt.
Type of peer review
The Journal of Nano- and Electronic Physics employs "double-blind" reviewing, in which the referees remain anonymous to the author(s) throughout and following the refereeing process, whilst the identity of the author(s) is likewise unknown to the reviewers.
How the referee is selected
Reviewers are selected from among the leading specialists in the relevant field and conduct research in a specialty that corresponds to the topic of the material submitted for publication, and are authors of scientific publications in the relevant specialty published within the last five years.
Referee reports
Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
- Is original as to thought and method (including data)
- Is methodologically sound
- Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
- Correctly and exhaustively references previous relevant work
- Follows appropriate ethical guidelines, especially as concerns plagiarism
- Clearly adds to the knowledge and development of the field
Language correction is not part of the peer-review process, but referees are encouraged to suggest corrections of language and style to the manuscript. In the final round, the handling Editor will check matters of linguistic and stylistic correctness, and may suggest or apply corrections at this point. In rare cases, the manuscript may be returned to the author(s) for a full linguistic and stylistic revision.
How long does the review process take?
For the Journal of Nano- and Electronic Physics, the typical time for the first round of the refereeing process is approximately 6 weeks, with a maximum of two months. Should the referees’ reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion may be sought. In the rare cases when it is extremely difficult to find a second referee to review the manuscript, whilst the one referee’s extant report has thoroughly convinced the handling Editor, a decision to accept, reject or ask the author for a revision may be made, at the handling Editor’s discretion, on the basis of only one referee report. The handling Editor’s decision will be sent to the author with the referees’ recommendations, usually including the latter’s verbatim comments. As a rule, revised manuscripts are sent to the initial referees for checking; these may then request further revision.
Final report
A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with the recommendations made by the referees, including (if applicable) the latter’s verbatim comments.
The Chief Editor's decision is final
Reviewers send motivated conclusions on peer-reviewed scientific works to the editor-in-chief with appropriate recommendations to accept, accept conditionally (send for revision) or reject the article. If the conclusions of the reviewers differ, the editor-in-chief may appoint an additional reviewer. The final decision on the publication of the manuscript is made by the editor-in-chief.
The procedure for consideration of appeals
Adhering to the principles of publication ethics and guided by COPE recommendations, the editorial board conscientiously and impartially considers complaints, comments, and suggestions from all participants in the publication process.
1. If the author disagrees with certain comments of the reviewer, he has the right to send an appeal to the editorial office in the format “reviewer’s comments – author’s comment”. This document is sent to the reviewer and, together with the editorial office, a corresponding decision is made regarding the manuscript.
2. In the case that the reviewers choose opposite resolutions regarding the submitted manuscript (accept/reject), the editorial office, together with the reviewers, considers all the comments to agree on a position on the further publication of this material.
3. If a decision cannot be made, the editorial office appoints an independent expert.
Becoming a referee for the "Journal of Nano- and Electronic Physics"
If you are not currently a referee for the Journal of Nano- and Electronic Physics but would like to be considered as a referee, please contact the editorial office at l.odnodvorets@aph.sumdu.edu.ua.
Note on refereeing of Special issues and the like
Special issues and/or conference proceedings may have different peer review procedures involving, for example, Guest Editors, conference organizers, or scientific committees, who all report to the Special Issues Editor and ultimately, the Chief Editor. Authors contributing to these projects may receive full details of the peer review process on request from the editorial office (email: l.odnodvorets@aph.sumdu.edu.ua).
The review process is automated. Reviewers are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief or Editors of special topics on the website https://submission.jnep.sumdu.edu.ua.
