Subject expertise
Match reviewers to the chemical subdiscipline and to essential techniques such as synthesis, spectroscopy, computation, materials characterization or analytical validation.
Editorial stewardship
For editors
JNDC editors assess scope and readiness, select qualified reviewers, interpret evidence and recommendations, and protect the independence and integrity of each decision.
- Role
- Editorial assessment
- Reviewers
- Normally at least two
- Default model
- Single-blind
- Escalation
- Editorial office
Before handling a manuscript
An editor should accept an assignment only when the subject, time and conflict requirements can be met.
Initial assessment
- Confirm that the central contribution fits JNDC's Aims and Scope
- Check article type, completeness and minimum reporting requirements
- Assess whether methods and chemical evidence are adequate for external review
- Identify immediate ethics, authorship, data or image-integrity concerns
Conflicts and recusal
Editors must disclose personal, professional, financial or institutional interests that could affect, or appear to affect, impartiality. A conflicted editor should decline the assignment.
Editor-authored manuscripts are assigned to an independent editor. The submitting editor does not select reviewers, access confidential reports beyond the author's role or take part in the decision.
Reviewer selection and confidentiality
Reviewers should collectively cover the manuscript's central chemical question, methods and evidence.
Independence
Check recent collaboration, institutional relationships, competing interests and other circumstances that could compromise impartial review.
Confidentiality
Share only the material needed for review through the approved editorial workflow. Reviewer identities remain protected under the applicable review model.
Review model
Peer review: Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
Evaluation and decision recommendations
Reviewer recommendations inform but do not determine the editorial decision.
| Area | Editor should establish | Possible response |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Is chemistry central to the contribution? | Proceed, request clarification or decline as out of scope |
| Methods and evidence | Are procedures, controls, characterization and analyses sufficient? | Request revision, further review or reject where defects are fundamental |
| Reviewer disagreement | Does disagreement arise from expertise, interpretation or missing evidence? | Reconcile the reports or obtain an additional independent review |
| Decision | Does the record support a clear, proportionate outcome? | Explain the decision and the required next step without promising acceptance |
Decision criteria
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
Research-integrity concerns and escalation
Do not investigate serious concerns through informal author correspondence alone.
Escalate when necessary
- Potential fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or duplicate publication
- Undisclosed image alteration or inconsistent source data
- Authorship, consent, animal-welfare or trial-registration concerns
- Reviewer manipulation, identity concerns or attempts to influence the process
- Complaints, appeals or post-publication concerns involving the handling editor
Preserve the record, document the concern and contact the Editor-in-Chief or editorial office. Follow the journal's correction, expression-of-concern and retraction policies where post-publication action may be needed.
AI in peer review
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Editorial appointments
Editorial service is a vetted scholarly role and does not confer an advantage in the review or acceptance of an editor's own work.
Prospective editors may provide a current CV, ORCID iD, institutional affiliation, subject expertise and relevant editorial or peer-review experience to the editorial office. Appointment depends on the journal's scope, current editorial needs and review of the supplied record.
Need support with an assignment?
Contact the editorial office for workflow questions, conflicts, research-integrity concerns or escalation.
Contact the editorial office