Editor Guidelines
Comprehensive standards and expectations for JNDC Editorial Board members in chemistry publishing.
Shaping Chemical Research Excellence
As a member of the JNDC Editorial Board, you play a pivotal role in maintaining the scientific rigor and integrity of published chemistry research. These guidelines outline your responsibilities, decision-making framework, and communication standards.
Editors serve as the primary gatekeepers of scientific quality for JNDC. Your fundamental duties include:
- Evaluate assigned manuscripts for scientific validity, methodological rigor, and chemical significance
- Assess alignment with JNDC scope: organic, inorganic, physical, analytical, materials, and green chemistry
- Select and invite qualified peer reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant chemistry discipline
- Verify correct use of IUPAC nomenclature and chemical conventions throughout manuscripts
- Ensure all potential conflicts of interest are identified and appropriately managed
- Synthesize reviewer feedback into constructive, actionable editorial decisions
- Maintain strict confidentiality of all manuscript contents and reviewer identities
- Uphold COPE guidelines and JNDC editorial policies at all stages of evaluation
- Respond to author queries and appeals in a professional, timely manner
When a manuscript is assigned to you by the Editor-in-Chief, follow this workflow:
- Initial Assessment (48 hours): Review for scope fit and basic quality. If clearly outside scope or fundamentally flawed, recommend desk rejection with justification.
- Conflict Check: Declare any personal, financial, or institutional conflicts with the authors or research topic. Recuse yourself if objectivity could be compromised.
- Scientific Screening: Verify that characterization data appears complete, structures are properly drawn, and basic chemical accuracy is maintained.
- Reviewer Identification: Identify 3-5 potential reviewers with relevant expertise in the specific chemistry subdiscipline.
- Reviewer Invitation: Send invitations via ManuscriptZone. If initial invitees decline, promptly identify alternatives.
- Monitor Progress: Track reviewer response times. Send reminders for overdue reviews. Escalate persistent delays.
- Decision Synthesis: After receiving reviews, synthesize feedback and formulate your editorial recommendation.
Selecting appropriate reviewers is critical to maintaining publication quality. Consider the following:
Chemistry Expertise
Match reviewers to the manuscript's chemical subdiscipline: organic synthesis, catalysis, analytical methods, materials science, etc. Technique-specific expertise matters.
Methodological Expertise
For manuscripts with specialized techniques (NMR, mass spectrometry, computational methods), include reviewers with appropriate technical experience.
Application Knowledge
For applied chemistry manuscripts (pharmaceutical, materials, environmental), consider including reviewers with relevant application experience.
Geographic Diversity
When possible, select reviewers from different institutions and regions to ensure broad perspective and avoid conflicts.
After receiving peer reviews, you must formulate a recommendation for the Editor-in-Chief:
| Decision | Criteria | Author Action |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | Manuscript meets all standards; no or trivial revisions needed | Proceed to production |
| Minor Revision | Manuscript is sound but requires clarifications or minor improvements | Revise within 2 weeks; no re-review |
| Major Revision | Significant issues identified but potentially addressable | Revise within 6 weeks; will undergo re-review |
| Reject | Fundamental flaws in chemistry, methodology, or scope; or insufficient novelty | May resubmit as new submission if fundamentally restructured |
Chemistry-Specific Decision Factors
When evaluating chemistry manuscripts, pay special attention to: completeness of compound characterization, reproducibility of synthetic procedures, purity assessments, correct stereochemistry assignments, and appropriate controls for analytical methods.
Professional, timely communication is essential to editorial excellence:
- Respond to new manuscript assignments within 48 hours
- Send reviewer reminders promptly when reviews become overdue
- Submit your editorial recommendation within 10 business days of receiving all reviews
- Ensure decision letters are constructive, specific, and professional
- Direct complex ethical concerns or appeals to the Editor-in-Chief
Editors must be vigilant for potential ethical issues during evaluation:
- Flag any concerns about data integrity, spectral manipulation, or potential plagiarism
- Verify that proper safety information is included for hazardous procedures
- Ensure appropriate citations and credit to prior work
- Check for proper disclosure of conflicts of interest by authors
- Refer to COPE flowcharts when ethical concerns arise
Questions for the Editorial Office?
Our team is available to support you with any manuscript handling queries or policy clarifications.
Contact Editorial Office
