PROGRESS IN CRYSTAL GROWTH AND CHARACTERIZATION OF MATERIALS
Peer Review Policy for Progress in Crystal Growth and Characterization of Materials
High quality Peer Review prior to publication is a crucially important aspect of the development and advance of scientific knowledge. It is a basic requirement at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out by all reputable scientific journals. Our reviewers thus play a vital role in maintaining the high standards required for "Progress in Crystal Growth and Characterization of Materials". Manuscripts for PCGCM 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. Authors contributing to these projects may receive full details of the peer review process on request from the editorial office.
Initial manuscript evaluation
The editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is entirely possible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage may lack adequate review content, be unsuitable scientifically, have poor quality English, or be 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 reviewers.
Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will normally be informed within two weeks of receipt.
Type of peer review
PCGCM employs single blind review, where the referee remains anonymous throughout the process.
How the referee is selected
Reviewers are selected for their experience and background knowledge of the review topic.
Reviewer's reports
PCGCM is a review Journal and since most manuscripts consider only published work, the essential content will have been Peer reviewed. The overall assessment of a review will therefore be of primary importance. It assesses:
A. The basic aim of the review and its overall standard providing advice on the suitability and topic coverage of the manuscript.
B. Whether it is up-to-date and whether it replicates other reviews.
C. Whether there is any undue bias in the scientific assessment or lack of coverage of the topics within the review?
D. Whether any key references are missing?
E. Whether there are any points which the reviewer considers need to be taken into consideration?
F. Whether it is suitable for publication as is or with revision?
Reviewer's advice is not only a great help to the Journal (PCGCM) but more especially is of inestimable value to the crystal growth community and science in general.
Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process.
How long does the review process take?
Typically the manuscript will be reviewed within 2 months. Should the referees' reports contradict one another or a report be unnecessarily delayed a further expert opinion may be sought. All our reviewers sign a conflict of interest statement. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the initial referees within 4 weeks. Reviewers 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
Reviewers advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.
