Peer-Review Process

Journal of NanoScience in Advanced Materials (NANOSAM) is an international single-blind (only the reviewers are anonymous) peer-review journal in which original articles on the results of experimental and theoretical research in the fields of basic and applied science are published electronically. 

NANOSAM has carried out the publishing process of the articles in 4 steps as specified.

 

1) Preliminary Evaluation Process:

1.1. Plagiarism Screening Stage (Within 1 day)

NANOSAM first scans the study for plagiarism in article applications.

As a result of the online screening with the Intihal.net program, two issues are taken into consideration regarding the plagiarism rate. The first of these issues is the general plagiarism rate of the study. This rate is required to be below 20%. The second issue is the details in the plagiarism report. Regardless of the general plagiarism rate of the study, the citation rate from any study in the plagiarism report should not be 3% or more. If both the general plagiarism rate and the plagiarism rate per source are higher than the specified rates after the plagiarism screening, the authors will be asked to revise their studies by taking into account the rates in the plagiarism report.

Authors can submit their revised studies via our submission system without the need to apply for a new article by making the necessary revisions. The revised study will be subject to plagiarism screening again and if the conditions are met, the study will pass the plagiarism screening stage. If the conditions are not met, the study will be rejected.
In article applications, the study is scanned for plagiarism on the day the application is made. If the study's plagiarism report meets the journal criteria, the next stage, the Article Preliminary Evaluation (Technical Adequacy) Stage, is passed on the day the application is made.

1.2. Preliminary Evaluation Stage (Technical Adequacy) (within 3 days)

To check the applied article files,
To check that the "Full Text", "Author Contribution Declaration Form" and "Copyright Transfer Form" requested in the application stage are filled in completely and correctly,
To check the resolution of the figures in the full text of the article,
To check whether the references are written in the appropriate format.

1.3. Preliminary Evaluation Stage (Scientific Adequacy) (Within 3 days)

As a result of the preliminary evaluation (Scientific Adequacy), articles are either taken to the referee evaluation process or rejected by the editorial decision. The following items are checked during the preliminary evaluation stage

Suitable for the journal's objectives and scope,
Whether the originality, innovation or importance level is sufficient,
Whether the study is attractive to the journal's readership.

2) Referee Evaluation Process:

Articles that pass the 1st stage are assigned to the relevant Associate Editor by the Editors in Chief. The 
Associate Editor determines expert referees in the field of study, sends referee invitations and assigns at least two (2) -usually three (3)- referees. Referees are assigned from different institutions.

Referees are expected to respond to the invitation positively or negatively within 7 days. For potential referees who do not accept the referee invitation or do not take any action within the given 7-day period, the referee invitation is either withdrawn or a reminder is sent to the referee by extending the period. New potential referees are invited until the number of referees who accept the referee invitation reaches at least 2, usually 3.

Our referee instructors who accept the referee invitation are given a maximum of 14 days to complete the article evaluation. If the task is not completed by the end of this period, reminder messages are sent to our referee instructors. If the referee does not request additional time or the referee task is not completed despite two reminder messages sent five days apart, the task is canceled. If the referees request additional time in addition to the evaluation period, the editorship grants the referees additional time considering the evaluation process of the article.

If all referees assigned to an article have made a decision about the article before the 14-day period determined for the evaluation process is over, in this case, the field editors can make a decision on the day the final evaluation is completed.

Field Editors carefully examine the referee decisions and evaluation reports and make recommendations to the Editor.

If two referees are assigned to an article and one referee gives a positive decision and the other a negative decision, a new referee is assigned to receive the opinion of a third referee. The Associate Editor forwards his/her decision to the Editor, taking into account the decision of the third referee. If there is a difference between the referees' decisions regarding the article and the evaluation reports, the evaluation reports are carefully examined to determine the referee's opinion on the article.

 

3) Decision Process:

According to the opinions of at least 2 referees and the Associate Editor who took part in the Referee Evaluation Process, the Editor makes the Acceptance/Rejection/Revision decision for the article and notifies the authors.

The Direct Acceptance decision is given if the recommendation from the referees and the Associate Editor is recommended to be accepted without any changes to the article. At this stage, the article is directed to the Language Editor and taken to the Publication process.

The Revision decision is given if the recommendation from the referees and the Associate Editor requires Minor or Major changes to the article. At this stage, the article and the referee opinions are sent to the authors. Depending on the type of revision, a period of 14 days to 30 days is given for the revision of the article. If a major revision process has been gone through, a new opinion may be requested from the referees. In minor revisions, the Editor/Associate Editor may decide on the acceptance of the revision. The article accepted after revision is directed to the Language Editor and taken to the Publication process.

The rejection decision is made when the article is not suitable for publication in NANOSAM Journal based on the recommendations of the referees and the Associate Editor. This decision is notified to the authors in a way that includes the opinions of both the referees and the Associate Editor.

 

4) Editing and Publication Process:

Articles that are decided to be published;

are first directed to the Language Editor. At this stage, the Language Editor reads the entire article and indicates the areas that need correction. Then, it is directed to the Layout Editor.

The article directed to the Layout Editor is brought into compliance with the publication format of the journal.
Finally, it is sent to the authors for the authors to read it one last time and to correct possible spelling errors.
In line with the feedback from the authors, the PDF file of the article and all publication information are subjected to final control.

The article is published in the relevant issue.