[Back to list of manuscript types]
Referees should give an overall recommendation as to whether a
manuscript should be published without, with minor, or with major
alterations, or should be rejected.
Please formulate the comments for the Authors in a polite form, even when heavy criticism is being delivered.
Minor alterations include:
Manuscripts that cannot be accepted for publication in ChemNanoMat could perhaps be acceptable after minor or major improvements—either without further refereeing at all or after further refereeing by the same referees—for publication in one of ChemNanoMat's sister journals.
In the event of rejection, referees can recommend a different journal under "5. Please indicate which other journal you consider more appropriate". This procedure should have benefits for both Authors and Reviewers by facilitating the publication process.
To help us assess the paper we request that you answer the following questions:
The judgment of the importance of a paper is to a certain extent subjective. Please note, we are asking for an evaluation of the importance only with regard to publication in ChemNanoMat. Thus, a paper can be considered to be very important or important for a broad and heterogeneous readership and is thus suitable for publication in ChemNanoMat. A highly specialized paper might not be important for ChemNanoMat but only for a specific area of materials chemistry.
Based on our experience, we anticipate that:
The top 10% of the submitted manuscripts are very important:
Another 20% of the submitted manuscripts are important:
The remainder (70%) of the submitted Communications are either important but too specialized, less important, or minor:
Is all relevant prior work cited and discussed? Or has relevant prior work been overlooked or not discussed appropriately? Does the manuscript include many papers with low relevance to the current study?
Communications should be short and concise. They are usually limited in length to four template pages. Longer Communications will be accepted only if their quality warrants special consideration. Details that are of importance to specialists, but not to most of the readers, should be submitted as Supporting Information.
Assumptions and hypotheses brought forward in a manuscript must be in accord with the experimental and/or theoretical results. All new compounds and materials must be fully characterized by appropriate analytical methods. These data should be given in the Supporting Information in the event that they exceed the scope of the Experimental Section. The term "Supporting Information" should be taken literally: Readers must be able to read a Communication without needing to retrieve the Supporting Information.
In the event that the work is considered more suitable for publication elsewhere, referees can recommend another journal, for example:
If you have information that is relevant to the comments and recommendation you have made, this can be sent either as an attachment for the Handling Editor or for the Author. Where the attachment is for the Author, please ensure that any formulations or file information will not give away your identity.
Communications report on experimental and/or theoretical studies of the chemistry of materials; they should be short. The results must be of general interest or at least contribute to the development of an important area of research. The essential findings presented in a Communication or significant parts of them may not already have appeared in print or in electronic online systems (for example, in online resources, in reviews, proceedings, or preprints). Communications should not be divided into sections. However, experimental details or methods should be summarized concisely under the heading Experimental Section or Methods. Communications require an Abstract, which should be brief (600–1000 characters) and not too technical. The first paragraph of a Communication should be formulated as an introduction that provides the nonspecialist reader with a general idea of the state of the art of the field and allows the importance of the results to be put into perspective. In the final paragraph the results should be summarized succinctly and one sentence should be devoted to their significance and, if appropriate, to the next challenges.