﻿ Journal of Nano- and Electronic Physics

Peer-review policy

 

Our referees play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of the "Journal of Nano- and Electronic Physics", which is why all incoming manuscripts are peer-reviewed following the procedure outlined below.

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

Whenever possible, referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise. As our reviewer database is constantly being updated, we welcome suggestions for referees from the author(s).

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

Referees advise the Chief Editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.

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 [email protected].

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: [email protected]).

 

Download the review template.

 
https://jnep.sumdu.edu.ua/en/component/reviewer/referee_instruction
jnep.sumdu.edu.ua
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-27
12736
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:T5UGMWXJEGEXFDKNKLSM67BM56ACGKLI
<urn:uuid:59a519ba-29ad-40d0-bd4e-eebd02e7b7df>
2022-07-03T18:28:00Z
172.67.75.53
application/xhtml+xml
sha1:3TANJQBCADBTQ4ZNIY5YLZ6CJ7Y36PET
<urn:uuid:a96dbdb2-6565-4220-baba-e70e27eb8150>
https://jnep.sumdu.edu.ua/en/component/reviewer/referee_instruction
response
<urn:uuid:0059f41e-0571-4953-9ff6-68dfa0827521>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-27
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for June/July 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-171
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.3-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/