Peer Review

The purpose of peer review is to improve the quality of the manuscripts and ensure the unbiased review process. We are grateful for your time and efforts donated to the Journal of Functional Materials and Chemical Engineering (JFMCE). Reviewers’ evaluations play a key role in our decision as to whether to accept a manuscript for publication.

JFMCE operates a double-blind review process in which the identities of the authors are hidden from the reviewers, and identities of the reviewers are hidden from the authors. Reviewers can choose to sign their reviews if they wish.

Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted fairly and objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. If the research reported in the manuscript is flawed, criticize the science, not the scientist. Personal criticism is likely to lead an author to ignore useful comments, making your review less useful to your field. Criticisms should be objective, not merely differences of opinion, and intended to help the author improve his or her paper.

Conflict of Interest

You should decline to review manuscripts in which you have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Before You Begin

Before receiving or declining an invitation to review a manuscript, please consider the following questions :

1. Does the article match your research interests? Only accept when you feel you can provide a high quality review.

2. Do you have a potential conflict of interests? Disclose this to the editor when you response.

3. Will you be able to finish the review by due date? Reviewing can be a lot of work, please make sure you can meet the deadline before receiving.

4. Do you know the peer review process in detail? 

Respond to the invitation as soon as you can (even if it is to decline) – a delay in your decision slows down the review process and means more waiting for the author. If you do decline the invitation, it would be helpful if you could provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.

Confidential material

If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.

Spotting Potential Major Flaws

Examples of possibly major flaws include:

1. Drawing a conclusion that is contradicted by the author's own statistical or qualitative evidence

2. The use of a discredited method

3. Ignoring a process that is known to have a strong influence on the area under study

If experimental design features prominently in the paper, first check that the methodology is sound - if not, this is likely to be a major flaw.

You might examine:

1. The sampling in analytical papers

2. The sufficient use of control experiments

3. The precision of process data

4. The regularity of sampling in time-dependent studies

5. The validity of questions, the use of a detailed methodology and the data analysis being done systematically (in qualitative research)

6. That qualitative research extends beyond the author's opinions, with sufficient descriptive elements and appropriate quotes from interviews or focus groups

Structuring Your Review

Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. It will also aid the author and allow them to improve their manuscript. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any ad hominem remarks.

Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgement so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data and evidence.

If you wish to make comments directly on the manuscript pdf using the Note tool, you may do so. However, we do not expect you to copy-edit the manuscript. If you do annotate the pdf, please also include a summary of your general comments. You may also upload other documents (e.g. your review as a document, useful references). The journal editorial assistant will remove your identity from the properties of these documents to maintain your anonymity.

Recommendation

When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor will likely use for classifying the article:

1. Reject (explain your reason specifically)

2. Reconsider After Revisions (explain the revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether you would be happy to review the revised article). If you are recommending a revision, you must furnish the author with a clear, sound explanation of why this is necessary.

3. Accept With Minor Corrections (explain the revision that is required)

4. Accept As Is

Final Decision

The editor ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the article. The editor will weigh all views and may call for another opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision.

After Your Review

Do not forget that, even after finalizing your review, you must treat the article and any linked files or data as confidential documents. This means you must not share them or information about the review with anyone without prior authorization from the editor.