"Physics, Chemistry and Materials Science" An official journal of the Korean Physical Society
Peer Review Policy Current Applied Physics
Peer Review Policy for Current Applied Physics
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 Current Applied Physics
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. Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will
normally be informed within two weeks of receipt.
Those that meet the minimum criteria are typically
passed on to one or more expert referees.
Type of peer review
This journal employs single blind review, where the referee remains anonymous
for the author 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 Current Applied Physics is currently
two months.
Should the referees' reports contradict one another or a report be
unnecessarily delayed a further expert opinion may 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, the decision to accept, reject or ask the author for
a revision is then made on the basis of only one referee's report.
Revised manuscripts should be returned to the initial referees within
eight weeks.
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
along with any recommendations made by the referee(s), and may include verbatim
comments by the referee(s).
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 for Current Applied Physics
If you are not currently a referee for Current Applied Physics but would like to
be added to the list of referees for this title, please contact one of the
main editors (for contact details please go to http://www.elsevier.com/locate/cap) giving key phrases describing your field of expertise.
The benefits of refereeing for Current Applied Physics 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 Current Applied Physics in fulfilment
of your professional development requirements for various professional societies
and organisations.