The Journal of Nanomagnetism (JNM) employs a rigorous single-blind peer review process, in which the identities of authors are known to reviewers, while reviewers remain anonymous to authors. This process is designed to ensure fairness, scientific integrity, and high academic quality. The existence and content of submitted manuscripts are treated as strictly confidential and are disclosed only to editors and assigned reviewers.

All manuscripts submitted to JNM are initially screened for completeness and compliance with the journal’s guidelines. The Editor-in-Chief then evaluates the manuscript in terms of scope, originality, scientific quality, and potential impact. Manuscripts deemed unsuitable at this stage may be rejected or returned to authors for preliminary revision.

Each manuscript that passes the initial screening undergoes plagiarism detection using iThenticate. Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 30% may be rejected or returned for clarification, depending on the nature of the overlap.

Eligible manuscripts are then sent for peer review and are evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers, and in some cases three or more reviewers may be invited, particularly for interdisciplinary or technically advanced studies. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in nanomagnetism, condensed matter physics, materials science, nanotechnology, or related fields.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

• Originality: Novelty and uniqueness of the research

• Scientific Rigor: Soundness of theory, experiments, data analysis, and interpretation

• Methodology: Appropriateness and reliability of the applied methods

• Significance: Contribution to the advancement of nanomagnetism and related applications

• Clarity and Structure: Quality of presentation and logical organization

Reviewers provide detailed and constructive reports, highlighting strengths, identifying weaknesses, and offering recommendations to improve clarity, quality, and impact.

Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Editorial Board makes one of the following decisions:

• Accept

• Minor Revision Required

• Major Revision Required

• Reject

In the event of conflicting reviewer recommendations, an additional reviewer may be invited. The Editor-in-Chief retains full authority over the final decision and is not bound solely by reviewer recommendations. Authors receive anonymized reviewer reports together with the editorial decision.

Revision and Resubmission

Authors submitting revised manuscripts must provide a point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments, clearly indicating how each concern has been addressed. Authors may respectfully disagree with specific comments, provided that a clear scientific justification is given. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

Final Decision

Following satisfactory revision, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision. Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production and publication stage.

Ethical Standards

The peer review process at JNM strictly follows the COPE Peer Review Guidelines. All participants—authors, reviewers, and editors—are expected to adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct. Authors can track the status of their submissions through the journal’s online system, and the editorial office is available to assist at all stages of the process.

Peer Review Workflow Chart

Manuscript Submission
        │
        ▼
Registration & Completeness Check
        │
        ▼
Editor-in-Chief Initial Assessment
(Scope, Originality, Quality)
        │
        ├── Rejected
        │
        ▼
Plagiarism Check (iThenticate)
        │
        ├── Similarity > 30% → Rejection / Clarification
        │
        ▼
Reviewer Selection & Invitation
(≥ 2 Expert Reviewers)
        │
        ▼
Peer Review Process
        │
        ▼
First Editorial Decision
(Accept / Minor Revision /
 Major Revision / Reject)
        │
        ▼
Revision by Authors (if required)
        │
        ▼
Final Evaluation by Editor-in-Chief
        │
        ▼
Acceptance & Publication