The Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (JNN) rely on the expertise and commitment of reviewers to uphold the quality, integrity, and credibility of published research. Peer reviewers are essential in ensuring that manuscripts meet the highest scientific and ethical standards. These guidelines are intended to assist reviewers in fulfilling their role effectively.

1. Role of Reviewers

Reviewers provide an objective, constructive, and timely assessment of manuscripts submitted to JNN. Their feedback helps editors make informed decisions and assists authors in improving their work.

2. Confidentiality

• All manuscripts under review are strictly confidential documents.
• Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use the manuscript content for personal research or professional gain.
• Reviewer identity is kept confidential (double-blind review).

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

Assessment of Manuscripts

• Evaluate the novelty, originality, and significance of the research.
• Assess the scientific soundness of methodology, analysis, and interpretation of results.
• Verify that the conclusions are supported by the presented data.
• Ensure the manuscript aligns with the scope of JNN.

Ethical Considerations

• Identify instances of plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or unethical practices.
• Flag concerns regarding research involving humans or animals that lack proper ethical approval.
• Declare any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., personal, financial, or collaborative relationships with authors).

Quality of the Review Report

• Provide clear, detailed, and constructive comments that help authors improve their work.
• Separate major issues (e.g., methodology flaws, insufficient data) from minor issues (e.g., language, formatting).
• Maintain a professional and respectful tone at all times.

4. Structure of Reviewer Report

Reviewers are encouraged to structure their reports as follows:

1. Summary – Brief overview of the manuscript and its contribution.
2. Major Comments – Scientific validity, originality, and methodological concerns.
3. Minor Comments – Language, clarity, references, and presentation issues.
4. Recommendation – Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

5. Timeliness

• Reviewers should submit their reports within the agreed timeline (usually 2–3 weeks).
• If additional time is needed, reviewers should inform the editorial office promptly.
• If unable to review, decline the invitation early so alternative reviewers can be invited.

6. Ethical Standards for Reviewers

• Maintain impartiality and objectivity.
• Avoid using unpublished work for personal advantage.
• Respect the intellectual property rights of the authors.

7. Recognition and Acknowledgment

• Reviewers play a vital role in shaping the scientific record.
• JNN acknowledges reviewers’ contributions through annual recognition and offers opportunities for inclusion in editorial activities.

✉️ Contact

For reviewer-related inquiries or technical support, please contact: editor.jnn@sciconxjournals.com