|
 | | | |
|
|
|
ULTRAMICROSCOPY
| |
| | |
|
|
An international journal affiliated with MSA, ISEM, SCANDEM, NVEM, SGOEM, SIME-SM, DGE, MSC, ASEM and MSSA, committed to the advancement of new methods, tools and theories in microscopy
Peer Review Policy Ultramicroscopy
Peer Review Policy for Ultramicroscopy
The practice of peer review is to ensure that high quality 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 therefore play a vital role in maintaining the high standards
of Ultramicroscopy 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
organizers or scientific committees. Authors contributing to these
projects may receive full details of the peer review process from the
editorial office on request.
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 typically
passed on to a member of our editorial board, or one or more expert referees.
Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will normally be informed
within two weeks of receipt.
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. We welcome suggestions for referees from the
author though these recommendations are not necessarily used.
Referee reports
Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
• Is work of sufficient originality
• Is of high scientific quality
• Is methodologically sound
• Is timely
• 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 but referees may, if 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. The typical time for Ultramicroscopy is approximately two months.
Should the referees' reports contradict one another or a report be unnecessarily
delayed a further expert opinion may be sought. All our referees sign a conflict
of interest statement. 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, the decision to accept, reject or ask the author
for a revision is then made on the basis of only one referee's report.
An invitation to revise a manuscript will go out along with recommendations
made by the referee(s), and will usually include verbatim comments by the
referee(s).
Revision stage
A revised manuscript may or may not go out for further review, depending on
whether the Editor considers the referees initial comments or requirements
have been adequately addressed. Editor or referees may request more than one
revision of a manuscript.
Final report
A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author.
The Editor's decision is final.
Becoming a Referee for Ultramicroscopy
Referees advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to
accept or reject the article. If you are not currently a referee for Ultramicroscopy but would like to be added to the list of referees for this
title, please contact one of the editors (for contact details please go to
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ultramic) giving key phrases describing your
field of expertise. The benefits of refereeing for Ultramicroscopy 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 for Ultramicroscopy in
fulfilment of your professional development requirements for various
professional societies and organisations.
|
|
| |
| | |
|
|
| |
|
|
