Review
Peer Review Process
Metamaterials & Nanophotonics employs a rigorous peer review process to ensure the highest standards of scientific quality and integrity. Our review process is designed to be fair, constructive, and efficient while maintaining the confidentiality of all parties involved.
Initial Manuscript Evaluation
The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Associate Editor first evaluates all manuscripts for:
- Scientific originality and contribution to metamaterials & nanophotonics
- Technical soundness and methodological rigor
- Appropriateness for the journal's scope and audience
- Language quality and clarity of presentation
- Compliance with ethical guidelines and formatting requirements
Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be returned without external review to expedite the process.
Type of Peer Review
Metamaterials & Nanophotonics employs single-blind peer review, where:
Reviewers Know Authors
Reviewers see author identities to better evaluate expertise and track record
Authors Don't Know Reviewers
Reviewer identities remain confidential to ensure candid, unbiased feedback
Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are carefully selected based on:
- Expertise in specific areas of metamaterials, nanophotonics, plasmonics, or related fields
- Publication record and experience in the domain
- Geographical diversity to ensure global perspectives
- Absence of conflicts of interest with authors or institutions
Author Suggestions: Authors may suggest potential reviewers during submission, though the editorial team makes final selection decisions.
Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
Originality & Significance
Does the work present novel concepts, methods, or findings in metamaterials or nanophotonics?
Technical Soundness
Are the methods appropriate, well-described, and properly implemented?
Results & Analysis
Are results clearly presented and properly analyzed? Do they support conclusions?
Literature Review
Is previous work properly cited and contextualized?
Clarity & Presentation
Is the manuscript well-written, organized, and understandable?
Reproducibility
Are methods and data sufficiently detailed for replication?
Reviewers provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their work, regardless of the final decision.
Review Timeline
The typical time from submission to first decision is 8-12 weeks. Complex manuscripts or those requiring major revisions may take longer. We strive to provide timely decisions while ensuring thorough evaluation.
Editorial Decisions
Based on reviewer recommendations, the handling editor makes one of the following decisions:
Accept
Manuscript is accepted as is (rare)
Minor Revisions
Accept after addressing minor concerns
Major Revisions
Revise and resubmit for re-review
Reject
Manuscript is not suitable for publication
All decisions include detailed feedback from reviewers and editors to help authors understand the rationale and improve their work.
Becoming a Reviewer
We are always seeking qualified experts to join our reviewer panel. Ideal candidates have:
- A PhD in physics, electrical engineering, materials science, or related field
- Publications in reputable journals in metamaterials, nanophotonics, or adjacent fields
- Specific expertise in areas like plasmonics, photonic crystals, metasurfaces, or nanofabrication
- Commitment to providing timely, constructive reviews
Interested in reviewing for Metamaterials & Nanophotonics?
Join Our Reviewer Panelor contact our Editorial Office with your CV and areas of expertise
Ethical Guidelines
Our peer review process adheres to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. Reviewers must:
- Maintain confidentiality of manuscript content
- Declare any conflicts of interest
- Provide objective, constructive feedback
- Respect intellectual property and avoid plagiarism
- Complete reviews in a timely manner