Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guide for the JENMAS:
Journal of Energy, Materials & Sustainability

Thank you for agreeing to review for our journal. Your expertise helps ensure the quality, integrity, and impact of the research we publish.

 

1. Purpose of Peer Review

  • Ensure the scientific soundness, rigor, and ethical integrity of published work.
  • Provide constructive feedback that helps authors improve their manuscripts.
  • Assist the editors in making fair, evidence-based decisions.

This journal operates under a single-blind peer review model: reviewers know the authors' identities, but authors do not know reviewers'.

 

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

By accepting a review invitation, you agree to:

Conduct an objective, fair, and timely review

Please submit your evaluation within 14 days unless otherwise arranged.

Maintain strict confidentiality

Do not share, distribute, or discuss the manuscript with anyone.

Declare any conflicts of interest immediately

Examples:

  • Same institution
  • Recent collaboration
  • Personal or financial relationships
  • A competition that may bias judgment

If unsure, contact the editorial office.

Adhere to ethical standards

Report concerns about:

  • Plagiarism
  • Data manipulation or fabrication
  • Duplicate publication
  • Ethical approval issues
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest

What to Evaluate

Reviewers should assess manuscripts according to the journal's Sound Science Acceptance Philosophy:

A manuscript does not need cutting-edge novelty to be accepted.

It must demonstrate:

  • Sound methodology
  • Quality data
  • Reproducible and transparent procedures
  • Clear contribution within materials, sustainability, or energy
  • Accurate interpretation of results

Below is a detailed evaluation checklist, while there is a reviewer's form to be attached to the report:

 

4. Evaluation Checklist

A. Scientific Quality

  • Are the research questions clear and logical?
  • Is the methodology appropriate, rigorous, and sufficiently detailed?
  • Are the experimental/computational procedures reproducible?
  • Are the results valid, complete, and well-interpreted?
  • Does the study avoid major conceptual or methodological flaws?

B. Data Integrity

  • Are data, images, and figures authentic and trustworthy?
  • Is statistical analysis appropriate and correctly applied?
  • Do the results support the conclusions?

C. Relevance & Contribution

  • Does the study contribute meaningful knowledge in:
    • materials science,
    • sustainability,
    • renewable/clean energy,
    • or environmental materials applications?
  • Is the work incremental but still valuable?

D. Literature & Context

  • Is the background adequate and updated with relevant citations?
  • Are related works cited fairly and thoroughly?

E. Presentation Quality

  • Is the manuscript clearly written and logically organized?
  • Are the figures and tables clear, correct, and useful?
  • Is the English understandable for an international audience?

F. Ethics & Compliance

  • Are ethical approvals stated where applicable?
  • Are conflicts of interest disclosed?
  • Is there evidence of plagiarism or duplicate submission?

 

5. Your Recommendation Options

When submitting your review, please select one:

1. Accept

  • Suitable for publication with no more than very minor corrections.

2. Minor Revision

  • Scientifically sound; requires small changes to improve clarity or presentation.

3. Major Revision

  • High potential value but requires substantial improvements to methods, data presentation, or interpretation.

4. Reject

  • Fundamental flaws, unreliable data, unethical research, or out of scope.

 

6. How to Structure Your Review Report

A. Comments to the Authors

Please provide:

  • Clear, respectful, and actionable suggestions.
  • Numbered comments when possible.
  • Specific references to figures, tables, or sections.

Avoid:

  • Personal remarks
  • Vague statements without explanation

B. Confidential Comments to the Editor

Include:

  • Concerns about ethics or integrity
  • Doubts about data reliability
  • Potential conflicts of interest
  • Your confidence level in your evaluation

 

7. Confidentiality Policy

  • Do not discuss the manuscript with colleagues or students.
  • Do not contact the authors directly.
  • Destroy or delete all manuscript files after submitting your review.

 

8. Recognition for Reviewers

Reviewers may choose to receive recognition through:

  • Annual reviewer acknowledgment listings by the journal
  • Eligibility for the Outstanding Reviewer award

 

9. Need More Time or Wish to Decline?

If you are unable to complete the review:

  • Click Decline in the invitation email, or
  • Request an extension when necessary.

Early notification helps ensure a timely review process.

 

10. Thank You

Your contribution is essential to maintaining the quality and integrity of research published in the Journal of Materials, Sustainability & Energy.
We deeply value your commitment and expertise.

If you have any questions, please contact the editorial office.