ENGINEERING Transformative Materials Reviewer Guidelines
Peer Review Policy
Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific integrity and the primary mechanism for ensuring the highest standards of research quality. At ENGINEERING Transformative Materials, we view the peer-review process not merely as a quality control measure, but as a constructive dialogue between authors and reviewers.
The editors of ENGINEERING Transformative Materials deeply value the expertise and professional service provided by our reviewers. Your contribution is pivotal in helping us identify work that is not only technically sound but also possesses the "transformative" potential to redefine boundaries in materials science.
The Review Process
Reviewer invitations are issued via email from the Editorial Board through our online submission system. Each invitation includes the manuscript title, abstract, and the requested review deadline. Upon accepting the invitation, reviewers are granted access to the full manuscript. We encourage reviewers to contact the Editorial Office immediately if they require additional information or assistance.
Content of the Review
The core of any review is an objective assessment of both the technical rigor and the transformative novelty of the work. As ENGINEERING Transformative Materials is dedicated to publishing paradigm-shifting research, we request that reviewers specifically address the following elements:
l Conceptual Advance: Does the work represent a significant leap forward compared to existing literature? Does it solve a critical problem or open a new avenue of research?
l Interdisciplinary Depth: Does the research effectively bridge disciplines (e.g., physics, chemistry, engineering, biology) to provide a systemic solution?
l Specific Recommendation: Please provide a clear recommendation (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject).
l Rationale: Provide detailed arguments to substantiate your recommendation, focusing on the robustness of the data and the logic of the conclusions.
l Strengths & Weaknesses: Summarize the specific technical merits and limitations of the manuscript.
General Duties and Responsibilities
1. Conflicts of Interest (COI)
To ensure fairness and impartiality, reviewers must disqualify themselves if a conflict of interest exists. If any of the following situations apply, please report them to the Editorial Office immediately to request recusal:
l Familial or Personal Ties: A close personal or familial relationship exists between the reviewer and any of the authors.
l Institutional Affiliation: The reviewer and the authors are currently affiliated with the same institution or organization.
l Recent Collaboration: The reviewer has collaborated with the authors on research projects, co-authored papers, or engaged in joint grants within the past five years.
l Mentorship: A direct supervisor-student relationship exists (current or past) between the reviewer and the authors.
l Shared Academic History: The reviewer and the authors were mentored by the same graduate advisor or supervisor within a timeframe that implies a close connection.
l Financial/Professional Ties: The reviewer holds a paid position (e.g., visiting professor, consultant) at the authors’ institution.
l Other Conflicts: Any other financial, professional, or personal circumstances that could compromise, or appear to compromise, the objectivity of the review.
2. Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review are privileged documents and must be treated with strict confidentiality.
l Non-Disclosure: Information contained in the manuscript must not be disclosed to, discussed with, or shared with third parties without the written permission of the Editor-in-Chief.
l Prohibition on Use: Reviewers must not use data, arguments, or interpretations from an unpublished manuscript for their own research or personal gain.
3. Standards of Objectivity & AI Policy
Reviews must be conducted objectively, constructively, and professionally.
l Professional Conduct: Personal criticism of the authors is strictly prohibited. Comments should focus exclusively on the scientific content.
l Evidence-Based Assessment: Editors and reviewers are expected to provide clear, well-supported arguments to substantiate their evaluations.
l AI Policy: The use of Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, LLMs) to write review reports or to evaluate manuscripts is strictly prohibited. Uploading manuscript content to public AI platforms constitutes a breach of confidentiality. Reviewers are solely responsible for the accuracy and originality of their reports.
4. Punctuality
Timeliness is essential for the rapid dissemination of frontier science.
l Notification: If a reviewer feels unqualified to evaluate an assigned manuscript or anticipates being unable to complete the review within the specified timeframe, they must notify the Editorial Office immediately so that alternative reviewers can be secured.