Peer Review Policy for Journal of Membrane Science
The practice of peer review is to ensure that good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out on all reputable scientific journals. Our referees therefore play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of Journal of Membrane Science and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.
Initial manuscript evaluation
The Editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those 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 passed on to at least 2 experts for review.
Type of Peer Review
This journal employs single blind review, where the referee remains anonymous throughout the process.
How the referee is selected
Referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Our database is constantly being updated and we welcome suggestions for referees from the author although these recommendations may be used at the discretion of the Editor. Please include reviewer suggestions at the time of paper submission.
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 references previous relevant work
Referees are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process. While editors will attempt to expedite delivery of referee reports as far as possible, authors are asked to recognize that response times are highly dependent on the individual referee.
Final report
A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees, and may include verbatim comments by the referees.
Editor's Decision is final
Referees advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.
Becoming a Referee
If you are not currently a referee for Journal of Membrane Science but would like to be added to the list of referees for this title, please contact any of the editors listed on the Journal homepage http://www.elsevier.com/locate/memsci. The benefits of refereeing include the opportunity to see and evaluate the latest work in your research area at an early stage. You may also be able to cite your work as referee as part of your professional development requirements for various Professional Societies and Organisations.
Editorial: "Some useful tricks of the trade in reviewing articles" by William J. Koros, Editor-in-Chief, 21 November 2001
Considerable value is added to manuscripts during the reviewing process, due primarily to the "pro bono" contribution by referees. Harry Lonsdale, the founding editor of the "Journal" stated a useful rule of thumb: "About 90% of an editor's time is spent on 10%; of the manuscripts". I will extend this statement to say that 90% of the papers we ask referees' to review can each be handled "within a 2-3 h period". Another 10% "challenging group" may each take 20 h to review properly, but these truly are rare. I do not include truly "bad" papers in this group-such problem papers still can be handled in the 2-3 h as noted. The "challenging group" oppose existing paradigms or contain extensive complex theoretical issues that need more analysis time than the "standard 90%". I recommend the following refereeing rules of thumb to maximize efficiency. I find these rules help me "keep the decks clean while reviewing 6-8 papers for other journals per month.
1. Allocate a 2 h window of time for the primary review and stick to it. Read the paper "savagely"- underlining and annotating it within an hour or less. This leaves you with plenty of time in the 2 h time block to reconsider your comments and questions and to critique the overall work of the authors. Draft a referee report and within a day or so, review your comments, type the actual report and send it-3 h max!
2. If a particular paper turns out to be one of the "challenging 10%", move it to the bottom of the stack and work on another one instead. Contact the editor to request extra time to look at it. In reviewing, I find editors are delighted to be contacted to learn that they will receive a good quality review and when they will receive it.
3. In reviewing a paper, you are not co-authoring the paper. You are primarily pointing out things that are done well, things that are confusing, things that authors have overlooked or not cited and especially things that you have a suspicion "may actually be wrong". Correcting grammar and spelling is not necessary and extends the time required greatly. We want a technical review; however, if the grammar or writing makes the technical message unclear, flag it.
4. For the "standard 90%" group, useful referee reports tend to be about one to three pages long and begin with an overall assessment of the paper. If the paper is "good" and you have no specific corrections, point out some of the things that are interesting and make the work worthwhile. This lets the editor and author know that you actually read the paper.
5. If the paper has deficiencies that need to be addressed before the editor accepts it, "make an actual list of items, 1, 2, 3, etc." Clearly tell the editor what the concerns are: e.g. insufficient referencing of the work of others, insufficient description of procedures to allow the work to be reproduced, poor assumptions or theoretical bases for what was done, etc.
6. If you cannot complete a "standard" paper in 2 h using the above mentioned approach, it probably will need to be rejected or significantly rewritten. Provide the editor with guidance to assist in deciding which of these categories the paper belongs to. Lack of novelty, actual technical errors and obtuse reasoning not based on the scientific method are valid reasons to recommend rejection.
Home | Elsevier Sites | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Feedback | Site Map | A Reed Elsevier Company