All papers submitted to CMT-Ceramics in Modern Technologies are subjected to a single-blind peer review process aimed at evaluating quality, validity and originality of the submitted contributions. Single-blind peer review means that the identity of the reviewers is anonymous, whereas the authors’ names and affiliations are on the paper.
After its submission through the Editorial Manager system, the paper is accurately checked by the journal editors for plagiarism and for its appropriateness to comply with the aims and scopes of the journal. Contributions not fulfilling the above, and those not reaching minimum language requirements to allow a reliable scientific evaluation, are rejected without peer review. If the paper suitability has been assessed, reviewers will be appointed by the editors.
Your role as a reviewer is help in determining significance, originality and validity of the work, check that articles fit journal’s specific guidelines and ethical approaches, suggest improvements to the manuscript and/or suggest additional research if needed. On your recommendation, editors will accept, ask revisions or reject a manuscript.
1-For deciding if you accept or decline an invitation to review please consider:
i- if the paper matches your area of expertise
ii- any possible conflict of interest
iii-if you can reasonably meet the deadline for submission of your comments.
Regardless of the decision you will take, please answer to the invitation by the editors as soon as possible (anyway within 7 days) whether you agree to review or not. Please note that any delay in your decision slows down the review process.
Please also comply with the fixed time to evaluate a manuscript (21 days) after you have accepted to review it.
2-Any document you receive after you have accepted to review has to be treated as strictly confidential. Furthermore no information has be shared about the review with anyone without prior consent from editors and authors. This applies both during and after the publication process. Please, also be careful not to include in your comments to the paper any personal details that would enable to identify you as the reviewer.
3-Before starting to review, make you sure you know what the journal is looking for, according to any specific criteria you have to consider. For this, please refer to the authors Rules for Submission.
4-Your remarks about specific points and your overall opinion is of great relevance to help editors to decide on manuscript appropriateness. Please explain and support on objective and well documented basis your judgments regarding any fault and/or doubtfulness you identify in the manuscript to enable both editors and authors to be fully aware of the logic behind your comments.
5-Although each submitted paper is checked for plagiarism by using the Editorial Manager system, if you have any specific further suspect of plagiarism, or fraud or other ethical concerns, please provide as much details as possible to enable the editors to take appropriate measures.
YOUR EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
1-Achieve a general insight about the organization of the paper and on its level of novelty and originality.
2-Check that the most important requirements of journal layout and format are fulfilled.
2-Evaluate the following specific issues:
-does title of manuscript reflect the paper contents
-does abstract cover pertinent points
-is the experimental procedure correctly conducted and described
-are discussion and conclusions based on sufficient data
-can the text be abridged or amended, and part of the illustrations and tables be eliminated without altering the technical content
-is the English grammar and style adequate
3-Make your recommendation:
A-Paper is acceptable in the present form.
Please support your opinion by explaining in detail scientific/technical merits of the paper to help editors to take a decision
B-Paper is acceptable with minor corrections
The author will be required to revise the paper according to reviewers’ comments and then return the revised paper to the editors. The paper will be accepted at the editors discretion or returned to the reviewer for a final check.
C-Paper requires major corrections and a second review
The author will be required to significantly revise the paper according to the reviewer’s comments and then return it to the editors. The paper will then undergo another round of refereeing.
D-Paper is not acceptable under any conditions
Please support your recommendation by highlighting the specific drawbacks and scientific/technical limits of the paper. A simple “reject” is not admitted if not adequately supported.
Editors may call for third opinions in the case of conflict among authors and reviewers. Editor decision is final.