cnma

[Back to list of manuscript types]

Manuscript Type: Full Papers Revised Version

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

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 "4. 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 revised manuscript

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 manuscripts are either important but too specialized, less important, or minor:

2. Please rate the length of the revised manuscript

Full Papers have no length restrictions. However, the space should be used thoughtfully and economically (e.g., additional experimental data should be placed in the Supporting Information).

3. Are further changes/additions required

Please include any comments for the further improvement of the paper in the "Comments to Author" box.

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

In the event that the work is considered more suitable for another journal, referees can recommend, for example:

5. 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.

Full Papers present results of experimental or theoretical studies of general interest or great importance to the development of a specific area of research. Full Papers, which generally contain an Experimental Section and/or Computational Methods, have no length restrictions. However, the space should be used thoughtfully and economically (e.g., additional experimental data should be placed in the Supporting Information). ChemNanoMat does not publish Full Papers that consist mainly of results reported in previous Communications with an added experimental section. Full Papers require an Abstract, which should be brief (600–1000 characters) and not too technical, and an Introduction that includes relevant references and 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. The presentation of Results and Discussion may be combined or kept separate. These sections may be further divided by subheadings. The results should be summarized succinctly in the Conclusions and comment should be made on their significance and, if appropriate, to the next challenges.

Review Form

Referee e-mail
Manuscript number

1. Please rate the importance of the revised manuscript [help]

Question 1

  • Very important (top 10% of Full Papers)
  • Important (next 20% of Full Papers)
  • Important but too specialized for the wider field of materials chemistry
  • Less important, should be submitted elsewhere
  • Minor, is not publishable in this form

2. Please rate the length of the revised manuscript [help]

Question 2

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

3. Are further changes/additions required [help]

Question 3

  • No
  • Yes, see "Comments to Author"

Please include any comments for the further improvement of the paper in the "Comments to Author" box.

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

Question 4

Comments for the Authors

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

Comments for the Editors

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