Journal of New Technology and Materials follows a structured editorial process designed to ensure fairness, academic quality, transparency, and research integrity. All submitted manuscripts are handled according to the journal’s aims and scope, publication ethics policies, and peer-review standards.
The journal uses a single-blind peer-review process. In this model, the identities of the authors are known to editors and reviewers, but the identities of reviewers are kept confidential from the authors. This process allows reviewers to provide independent and honest evaluations while maintaining reviewer confidentiality.
1. Manuscript Submission
Authors submit their manuscripts to Journal of New Technology and Materials according to the journal’s submission instructions. The manuscript should be complete and should include all required information, including author names, affiliations, corresponding author details, abstract, keywords, main text, references, figures, tables, declarations, and any supplementary materials where applicable.
Authors are responsible for ensuring that the submitted manuscript is original, ethically prepared, and not under consideration by another journal at the same time.
2. Technical and Administrative Check
After submission, the editorial office conducts an initial technical check to confirm that the manuscript is complete and suitable for editorial assessment.
This check may include verification of:
- Completeness of the manuscript files;
- Author details and affiliations;
- Corresponding author information;
- Abstract, keywords, figures, tables, and references;
- Ethical approval statements, where applicable;
- Conflict-of-interest declaration;
- Funding statement;
- Copyright and licensing information;
- General compliance with journal formatting requirements.
If required information is missing, the manuscript may be returned to the authors for correction before editorial evaluation begins.
3. Initial Editorial Screening
All manuscripts undergo initial editorial screening before being sent for peer review. This stage normally takes approximately 7 days.
During this stage, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor evaluates whether the manuscript is appropriate for Journal of New Technology and Materials. The editor considers the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope, originality, scientific quality, clarity of presentation, ethical compliance, and potential contribution to materials science, engineering, nanoscience, nanotechnology, or related fields.
A manuscript may be rejected at this stage without external review if it is outside the journal’s scope, lacks sufficient originality, contains serious methodological weaknesses, fails to meet basic scholarly standards, shows evidence of plagiarism or ethical concern, or is not suitable for the journal’s readership.
4. Assignment to Handling Editor
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a handling editor with suitable expertise in the subject area. The handling editor manages the peer-review process, identifies appropriate reviewers, evaluates reviewer comments, and recommends an editorial decision.
If the handling editor has a conflict of interest with the manuscript, the manuscript is assigned to another qualified editor.
5. Reviewer Selection
The handling editor invites qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript’s subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their academic background, research experience, publication record, methodological knowledge, and ability to provide a fair and constructive evaluation.
Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest before accepting a review invitation. If a reviewer has a personal, professional, institutional, financial, or academic conflict that may affect impartiality, they should decline the invitation.
6. Single-Blind Peer Review
Journal of New Technology and Materials operates a single-blind peer-review system. Under this system, reviewers receive the manuscript with author information visible, while reviewer identities remain confidential.
Reviewers are expected to assess the manuscript objectively and professionally. Their evaluation may consider:
- Originality and novelty of the research;
- Relevance to the aims and scope of the journal;
- Scientific and technical quality;
- Soundness of methodology;
- Reliability of data and results;
- Clarity of analysis and interpretation;
- Adequacy of references;
- Quality of figures, tables, and supplementary materials;
- Ethical compliance;
- Contribution to the field;
- Overall suitability for publication.
Reviewers are asked to provide clear comments for the authors and confidential recommendations for the editor where appropriate.
7. Peer-Review Timeline
The peer-review process normally takes approximately 60 days, depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need for additional expert evaluation, and the number of revision rounds required.
The journal aims to provide timely decisions while maintaining careful and rigorous review. In some cases, additional time may be needed if reviewers disagree, if specialist review is required, or if ethical or technical issues need further assessment.
8. Editorial Decision
After receiving reviewer reports, the handling editor evaluates the reviewers’ comments and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief or responsible editorial authority.
The possible editorial decisions include:
- Accept;
- Minor revision;
- Major revision;
- Reject and resubmit;
- Reject.
The editorial decision is based on the reviewers’ evaluations, the editor’s own assessment, the manuscript’s scholarly merit, and its suitability for Journal of New Technology and Materials.
The journal does not base editorial decisions on authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religion, political views, personal relationships, or financial considerations.
9. Revision by Authors
If revision is requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response letter. The response letter should address each reviewer and editor comment clearly and explain how the manuscript has been revised.
Authors should highlight or describe all major changes made in the revised version. If authors disagree with a reviewer comment, they should provide a respectful and evidence-based explanation.
Minor revisions may be assessed directly by the handling editor. Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to additional reviewers if further expert evaluation is required.
10. Final Evaluation
After revision, the handling editor reviews the revised manuscript, the response letter, and any additional reviewer comments. The editor determines whether the authors have adequately addressed the concerns raised during peer review.
If the manuscript meets the journal’s academic, ethical, and editorial standards, it may be accepted for publication. If significant problems remain unresolved, the manuscript may require further revision or may be rejected.
11. Acceptance
Once a manuscript is accepted, the authors are notified formally. Acceptance means that the manuscript has satisfied the journal’s requirements for originality, scientific quality, relevance, ethical compliance, and contribution to the field.
Accepted manuscripts then proceed to the production stage.
12. Production and Publication
After acceptance, the manuscript is prepared for publication. The production process may include copyediting, formatting, layout preparation, metadata checking, proof generation, author proof review, final corrections, and online publication.
The usual time from acceptance to publication is approximately 10 days, provided that authors respond promptly to proof corrections and no major production issues arise.
13. Author Proofs
Before publication, authors may receive proofs for final checking. Authors should carefully review the proofs for typographical errors, formatting issues, author details, figures, tables, references, and metadata.
Proof corrections should be limited to production errors or minor factual corrections. Major changes to the accepted manuscript are not normally permitted at the proof stage unless approved by the editor.
14. Editorial Independence and Ethical Oversight
Journal of New Technology and Materials maintains editorial independence throughout the review and publication process. As a diamond open access journal, the journal does not charge article processing charges, submission fees, or publication fees. No payment is requested or accepted in exchange for editorial consideration, peer review, acceptance, or publication.
Editors are responsible for ensuring that all manuscripts are handled fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics policy. Any suspected ethical concern, including plagiarism, duplicate submission, authorship dispute, data manipulation, peer-review manipulation, or undisclosed conflict of interest, may result in investigation, rejection, correction, retraction, or other appropriate action.
15. Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose manuscript content, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, or unpublished research information to unauthorized individuals.
Reviewers must not use unpublished information from manuscripts for personal, academic, commercial, or competitive advantage.
16. Appeals and Complaints
Authors may submit an appeal if they believe that a serious error occurred during the editorial or peer-review process. Appeals must be submitted in writing and should clearly explain the reason for the appeal, supported by relevant evidence.
The journal will review appeals carefully. The appeal may be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief, a senior editor, or an independent editorial board member. The final decision after appeal will be communicated to the authors.
Complaints about editorial conduct, review quality, publication ethics, or journal procedures may also be submitted to the editorial office for review.