Review policy

General information

Requirements for publication

«Chemical Physics and Mesoscopy» receives more articles than it can publish. Therefore, we ask reviewers to keep in mind that each accepted article means that another good article may be rejected. To appear on the pages of the «Chemical Physics and Mesoscopy», an article must meet four basic requirements:

• To have compelling evidence to support the author's conclusions.

• To have a novelty.

• To be of interest to scientists in the field.

• Ideally, to be of interest to researchers in other related disciplines.

So then, in order to appear on the pages of a journal, an article must be new enough to change the view on the subject under study. There must be an obvious reason why the work deserves publication in the «Chemical Physics and Mesoscopy».

Review process

The editorial board reads all received articles. To save authors and reviewers’ time, only articles that meet editorial criteria are submitted for peer review. Articles that, in the opinion of editors, are not of interest or are not suitable for other reasons, are eliminated without peer review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from experts in the field).

Articles that are of interest to readers are sent for review to one or two reviewers. The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers’ assessment.

Selection of reviewers

The selection of reviewers is very important to the publishing process, and we make our selection based on many factors such as expertise, reputation, special guidelines, and our own previous experience with the editor. For instance, we try not to reach out to people who are slow to work, do not pay enough attention to work, or do not justify their views, be they hard or soft. Reviewers should understand that these messages contain confidential information and treat it accordingly.

Writing a review

The main purpose of peer review is to provide the editor with information to make a decision. The review should also contain recommendations for authors to improve the article for publication. A negative review should as much as possible indicate to authors the weaknesses of article so that authors whose works were rejected understand what the decision was based on and see what can be done to improve the work. This function is secondary, therefore, reviewers are not required to provide authors whose articles do not meet the requirements of the journal, a detailed, constructive justification (as set out in the editor’s letter to the reviewer). If the reviewer believes that the work is not suitable for publication, his / her response to the author should be of such a size that the author understands the reason for the rejection.

Anonymity

We do not disclose the identity of reviewers to authors or other reviewers, only if reviewers themselves ask for a name. Otherwise, we prefer that the reviewers remain anonymous during and after the review.

Requirements of publication of the review

All materials received by the «Chemical Physics and Mesoscopy», selected for review, are sent to at least one, but more often, two or more independent reviewers selected by the editor. Authors may suggest suitable independent reviewers, the journal is sympathetic and generally appreciates such requests, but the editor reserves the right to select reviewers.

Ethics and safety

Editors of the «Chemical Physics and Mesoscopy» can seek advice from the technical editors not only in relation to the received manuscripts, but also on any aspect of doubt. This could, for instance, include questions of ethics or questions of stated facts or access to materials. Sometimes, doubts can have consequences for society, including security threats. In such circumstances, the advice will be about the technical peer review process. As with all publishing decisions, the final decision to publish is the responsibility of the journal editor.