The manuscript is a privileged document. It needs to be protected from any form of exploitation. Editors/ reviewers are expected not to cite, refer and to refrain from using the information it embodies for the advancement of their own research.
An editor/ reviewer should consciously adopt a positive, impartial attitude towards the manuscript under review.
An editor/ reviewer should aim at promoting a precise and effective scientific communication.
An editor/ reviewer who thinks that he/she is not in position to judge a particular manuscript impartially, should not select or accept it for review/ refereeing.
Review/ refereeing should be carried out as per the stipulated time lines. In case it appears the deadlines are hard to meet in some specific case, NanoTrends publication management team should informed accordingly. This will enable the later to take alternative measures to avoid expected delay.
An editor/ reviewer should not discuss a manuscript with its Author/s. NanoTrends’ manuscript management system- author’s part takes care in keeping the authors abreast on the general status of manuscript.
The identity of editors/ reviewers is kept confidential as per the policies of the NanoTrends.
It is appropriate, not to make any statement about acceptance/ rejection or revision (subject to receipt of two similar opinions on revision) on a manuscript to the author, till a final verdict is arrived at, as per the NanoTrends norms.
The announcement of decision on acceptance/ rejection may rest on the NanoTrends publication management team.
NanoTrends publication management team expects the editor/ reviewer to daily monitor the status of manuscripts and specially watches for the comments on revision, rejection and acceptance to avoid any duplication of efforts at their ends. Onward actions/ decisions by the publication management team will be based on the information/ comments made available by the editor/ reviewer online on the web/ offline through an email.
Critical appraisal should be presented dispassionately in the comments intended for the Authors and harsh remarks avoided.
Suggested modifications should not imply as conditions of acceptance. It is important to make distinction between revisions considered essential and those judged merely desirable.
In cases, we do not accept a manuscript; we should convey our constructive comments that might help the author to improve it. This requires providing elaborate comments (with citations, if possible); it will help the editors/ reviewers to make a decision on the manuscript and the authors to improve it.
The documentation on criticism, arguments, and suggestions concerning the manuscript is to be preserved carefully. It will be quite useful for decision makers.
Editors/ reviewers are not expected correct mistake/s in grammar, but any assistance in this regard will be highly appreciated.
The editors/ publication management team gratefully receive a reviewer's/ referee’s recommendation (s), but since the decisions are based on evaluations derived from several sources, a reviewer/ referee should not expect decision makers to honor his or her every recommendation.
(In preparation of these norms, support from the information provided in the guidelines of Council of Science Editors has been taken)