The practice of peer review is to ensure that only good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out by all reputable scientific journals. Our referees play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of Vacuum and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.
Special issues and/or conference proceedings may have different peer review procedures involving, for example, Guest Editors, conference organisers or scientific committees. Authors contributing to these projects may receive full details of the peer review process on request from the local editorial office dealing with the proceedings.
Initial manuscript evaluation
The Editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is possible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are normally passed on to two experts for review.
Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will normally be informed within a few weeks of receipt.
Type of Peer Review
Vacuum employs single blind review, in which referees remain anonymous for the author throughout the process.
How the referee is selected
Whenever possible, referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Our database is constantly being updated. We welcome suggestions of referees from the author though these recommendations are not necessarily used.
Referee reports
Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
- Is original
- Is methodologically sound
- Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
- Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
- Correctly cites earlier relevant work
Language correction is not part of the peer review process but referees may, is they so wish, suggest corrections to the manuscript.
How long does the review process take?
The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the referees. However, the typical time for Vacuum is presently three months. Should the referees' reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. In rare cases for which it is extremely difficult to find a second referee to review the manuscript, or when the one referee's report has thoroughly convinced the Editor, decisions at this stage to accept, reject or ask the author for a revision are made on the basis of only one referee's report. The Editor's decision will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the referees, which usually includes verbatim comments by the referees. Revised manuscripts might be returned to the initial referees who may then request another revision of a manuscript.
Final report
A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author.
Editor's Decision is final
The Editor is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.
Becoming a Referee for Vacuum
The benefits of refereeing for Vacuum include the opportunity to read and evaluate the latest work in your research area at an early stage, and to contribute to the overall integrity of scientific research and its published documentation. In addition referees who have reviewed more than three papers in a calendar year may have their status acknowledged, if they so wish, by having their names listed in an annual statement in Vacuum.
If you are not currently a referee for Vacuum, but would like to be considered as a referee, please contact one of the Editors (see contact details at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/vacuum) giving key phrases describing your field of expertise.
Home | Elsevier Sites | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Feedback | Site Map | A Reed Elsevier Company