Reviewer Guidelines
Comprehensive standards and expectations for JNDC peer reviewers in chemistry.
Guardians of Chemical Knowledge
Peer reviewers are the backbone of scientific publishing. Your expert evaluation ensures that JNDC maintains the highest standards of chemical science rigor, accuracy, and reproducibility. These guidelines outline your responsibilities and best practices for constructive review.
As a JNDC reviewer, your fundamental duties include:
- Evaluate manuscripts objectively for scientific validity, chemical accuracy, and significance
- Assess the originality of the research and its contribution to chemical knowledge
- Verify correct use of IUPAC nomenclature and chemical conventions
- Complete reviews within the requested timeline (typically 14-21 days)
- Provide constructive, specific, and actionable feedback to help authors improve their work
- Identify any ethical concerns, including potential plagiarism or data issues
- Maintain strict confidentiality of all manuscript contents
- Declare any conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment
- Adhere to COPE guidelines for ethical peer review conduct
Before agreeing to review a manuscript, consider the following:
Expertise Match
Confirm that the manuscript falls within your area of chemistry expertise (organic, inorganic, analytical, physical, materials). If the methodology is outside your competence, inform the editor.
Conflict of Interest
Decline if you have a personal relationship with the authors, recent collaboration, competitive interest in the research topic, or institutional conflicts.
Time Commitment
Ensure you can complete the review within the requested timeline. Decline promptly if unable to meet the deadline.
When assessing a chemistry manuscript, systematically evaluate these dimensions:
| Criterion | Key Questions |
|---|---|
| Originality | Does this represent a novel contribution to chemical knowledge? Is the research question significant? |
| Scientific Validity | Is the chemistry sound? Are reaction conditions appropriate? Are controls adequate? |
| Methodology | Are synthetic procedures sufficiently detailed for reproduction? Are characterization methods appropriate? |
| Characterization | Are new compounds fully characterized (NMR, MS, elemental analysis)? Are spectra of acceptable quality? |
| Data Presentation | Are structures drawn correctly? Are spectra properly labeled? Are tables and figures clear? |
| Conclusions | Are claims supported by the data? Are limitations acknowledged? |
Synthetic Chemistry
Evaluate: reproducibility of procedures, appropriateness of reaction conditions, purity assessments, yield calculations, stereochemistry assignments, and scale-up potential.
Analytical Chemistry
Assess: method validation, detection limits, selectivity, precision and accuracy data, comparison with existing methods, and practical applicability.
Spectroscopy/Characterization
Verify: spectral quality, complete assignment of signals, appropriate use of 2D NMR when needed, correct molecular formula determination by HRMS.
Materials Chemistry
Consider: structure-property relationships, characterization completeness (XRD, TEM, BET, etc.), performance metrics, and comparison with benchmarks.
Your review should help authors improve their manuscript regardless of your recommendation:
- Structure your review: Organize comments into major issues (requiring substantial revision) and minor issues
- Be specific: Reference specific compounds, spectra, or procedures. Vague criticism is unhelpful
- Explain your reasoning: When identifying a flaw, explain why it matters chemically and suggest solutions
- Check characterization data: Verify NMR assignments, mass spectra, and other analytical data carefully
- Maintain professionalism: Critique the work, not the authors. Avoid dismissive language
- Acknowledge strengths: Begin by noting the manuscript's positive aspects before discussing weaknesses
Safety Considerations
For chemistry manuscripts, reviewers should flag any missing safety information for hazardous procedures, note inadequate personal protective equipment recommendations, and verify proper handling/disposal instructions for dangerous reagents.
Reviewers must maintain the highest ethical standards:
- Do not use ideas, data, or synthetic methods from manuscripts under review for your own research
- Do not share manuscripts with colleagues or students without editor permission
- Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or data fabrication immediately
- Flag any concerns about spectral manipulation or data integrity
- Do not contact authors directly about the manuscript
- Complete reviews yourself; do not delegate to trainees without disclosure
Questions About Reviewing?
Our editorial team is available to support you with any questions about the review process.
Contact Editorial Office
