cnma

[Back to list of manuscript types]

Manuscript Type: Focus Reviews

Please only use the form below if you have been explicitly asked by the editorial office not to use Editorial Manager (for example, because a decision was already made) or if Editorial Manager is unavailable.

Reviewer Instructions

Focus Reviews (up to 25000 characters) are critical but balanced and scholarly surveys of recent developments in a focused research field; they are broader than personal accounts but not as comprehensive as reviews. Although Focus Reviews should be recognized as scholarly by specialists in the field, they should be written with a view to informing materials chemists in general. Thus, Focus Reviews should avoid excessive jargon and too much technical detail. Focus Reviews should contain ample illustrations (figures, formulae, schemes, tables). References are limited to 100 (citations should be selective). Focus Reviews start with an abstract (600–1000 characters, no references), which should arouse the interest of the reader. The article itself is then structured according to the following sections: 1) Introduction; 2) Body (with several numbered headings and subheadings); 3) Conclusions and Perspectives.

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:

Major alterations include:

Manuscripts that require major alterations will usually be re-evaluated by the referee(s).

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 "6. 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:

1. Please rate the importance of the field under review

2. Please rate the citation of previous publications

3. Please rate the length of the manuscript

Overall a Focus Review should not be of more than 25000 characters, including footnotes, literature citations, tables, and legends.

4. Please rate the critical selection of presented data

5. Please rate the instructive presentation of the content

Focus Reviews should be divided into numbered sections. Cross-references in the text should also use these section numbers. The Focus Review should include an abstract (800 characters, no references), which should stimulate the readers' interest. The Introduction should primarily introduce the nonspecialist to the subject in as clear a way as possible. A Focus Review should conclude with a Conclusions and Perspectives section, in which the achievements of and new challenges for the subject are presented succinctly.

6. Please indicate which other journal(s) you consider more appropriate (optional)

7. Please indicate whether you have included attachments

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.

Review Form

Referee e-mail
Manuscript number

1. Please rate the importance of the field under review [help]

Question 1

  • Very important, of wide interest for both specialists and nonspecialists
  • Important for the wider field of materials chemistry
  • Too specialized, should be published elsewhere. Please indicate which other journal you consider more appropriate in the Comments to Author text box.
  • Not important, should not be published

2. Please rate the citation of previous publications [help]

Question 2

  • Good balanced overview, all relevant players and early as well as recent papers are cited
  • Too selective, relevant players are not cited or parts of the topic are omitted
  • Too many self-citations, the proportion of self-citations is too high

3. Please rate the length of the manuscript [help]

Question 3

Overall a Focus Review should not be of more than 25000 characters, including footnotes, literature citations, tables, and legends.

  • Concise and correct length
  • Too long; contains unnecessary information
  • Too short; requires additional information

4. Please rate the critical selection of presented data [help]

Question 4

  • Good balanced overview
  • Few additions required
    o Better selection required

5. Please rate the instructive presentation of the content [help]

Question 5

  • Good logical approach
  • Can be improved
  • Not well organized

6. Please indicate which other journal(s) you consider more appropriate (optional) [help]

Question 6

Comments for the Authors

Attachments (for authors; 3 MB max. size):

Comments for the Editors

Attachments (editors only; 3 MB max. size):