How is peer review done in Nanomedicine Journal (NMJ)?
Scholarly publication is a means to present your new work to be communicated in academic circles and peer review is at the heart of this process. Peer review, also known as refereeing, plays a central role in the selection of material with significance and excellence in content for publication in academic journals. Upon receiving a new manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief briefly reviews the manuscript to verify if it is in accordance with the journal’s policies such as aims and scope and style guidelines. If accepted at this initial step, the manuscript will be placed in a queue for being refereed by reviewers. Nanomedicine Journal (NMJ) practices double-blind peer review. Under double-blind peer review, identifying information of a submitted manuscript will be removed before sending the manuscript to reviewers and the identity of the authors and the reviewers will be kept secret from either party to ensure fairness and objectivity of the process. Nanomedicine Journal (NMJ) benefits from a community of volunteer reviewers enjoying distinguished academic records who are most versed in the subject matters falling within the scope of the journal. The editorial team will reach a common conclusion based on the evaluations by the peer reviewers as to whether accept or reject the manuscript. If the manuscript is conditionally accepted, the authors will be asked to address the issues raised by the reviewers and heed the demands of the editorial team. Revised manuscripts will be reviewed to check if the revisions are satisfactory. If the final decision is to accept the manuscript for publication, the authors will be informed and asked to fill the copyright transfer agreement and conflict of interest forms to transfer all rights under copyright to Nanomedicine Journal (NMJ). Accepted manuscripts will be published in the nearest issue of the journal.
A flow diagram showing the details of NMJ’s peer review process is depicted below