Instructions for Reviewers

NWJ ensures a rigorous and unbiased peer review by the expert scientists in the area of research to maintain the high-quality editorial process for all manuscripts submitted. The decision of article acceptance is judged by reviewer’s summary emphasizing the following:

  • The objective of the study or experimental design.
  • Appropriate implementation of methods.
  • Discussion of results and data analysis.
  • Novelty of the findings and conclusions having potential scientific impact.

NWJ Review Process

  • Authors Submission of Manuscript containing indication of the preferred section are ranked (whenever possible) by the Managing Editor (ME) in terms of total H index, patent index, prototypes and total Impact Factor normalized by average number of coauthors and author position, and in terms of adherence to the NWJ's editorial policy for the submitted papers.
  • Editor-in-Chief (EIC): Verifies author ranking, suggested section and relevance of the article title and assigns article for review to the appropriate Associate Editor (AE) or to the Managing Editor (ME) which chooses peer-reviewers among the list of authorities in the selected fields already assembled by EIC and constantly updated by ME upon Editorial Board indication.
  • Editorials written by the editor-in-chief or by editorial board members do not undergo external peer review and need only approval of Editor-in-Chief. However, original research articles/reviews authored by an editorial board member will go through the usual peer review process of the NWJ.
  • Upon AE and/or EBM and/or referee’s recommendations’ selected papers are finally accepted by the EIC in terms of adherence to the NWJ's editorial policies for the submitted papers defined in the NWJ Scope, Aims & Topics.

Reviewer’s responsibility

  • The reviewer should maintain confidentiality about the content of the unpublished manuscript and uphold the highest standard of ethics during the peer-review process.
  • The reviewer should inform the editor about the potential personal or financial conflict of interest, if such exist.
  • Reviewer should provide a clear and concise un-biased feedback and should avoid personal criticism or comments to authors about the acceptance or rejection. The comments should be constructive and help the authors to shape the manuscript to be the best it can be.

NanoWorld operates a double-blind peer review process for all the articles submitted to the journal, where both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous.

As a token of appreciation for the reviewers (as the peer-review process is purely voluntary in nature), NWJ provides a 25% discount on the article processing charge for accepted manuscripts where the reviewer is the corresponding author, if submitted within 18 months of completing the review process.

© NanoWorld Journal 2016, 8105, Rasor Blvd - Suite #112, PLANO, TX 75024, USA | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy