Introduction

The Thai Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (TJNN) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and rigor. As such, all manuscripts submitted to TJNN undergo a thorough peer-review process to ensure the quality, validity, and originality of the research published in the journal.

Editorial Review

Upon receipt of a manuscript, the editorial team conducts an initial review to assess its suitability for publication in TJNN. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and editorial criteria proceed to the peer-review process.

Peer-Review Process

- Selection of Reviewers: The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Associate Editors, selects expert reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript. Reviewers are chosen based on their academic qualifications, experience, and absence of conflicts of interest with the authors.

- Blind Review: TJNN follows a double-blind peer-review process, where the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are concealed from each other to ensure impartial evaluation.

- Review Criteria: Reviewers are instructed to evaluate manuscripts based on their originality, significance, scientific validity, methodology, clarity, and adherence to ethical standards. Reviewers provide constructive feedback to help authors improve the quality of their research.

- Review Reports: Reviewers submit detailed reports assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. These reports are confidential and communicated to the authors to guide revisions.

Editorial Decision

Editors typically take into account the peer-reviewed reports in their decision-making process. Articles that have been reviewed will typically be accepted for publication if they receive acceptance from at least two reviewers, as part of the double-blind review process.

However, there may be instances where the opinions or recommendations provided are not conclusive, particularly if concerns are raised by a single peer reviewer or the Editor, potentially leading to rejection of the manuscript. Authors will be provided with peer review reports along with the editorial decision regarding their manuscript.

In rare circumstances where securing three independent peer reviewers proves challenging, the Editor may either act as a third reviewer or base their decision on the reports of two reviewers.

Decision Types: Based on the reviewers' evaluations, the Editorial Board makes one of the following decisions:
- Acceptance: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further revisions.
- Minor Revision: The manuscript requires minor revisions to address specific concerns raised by the reviewers.
- Major Revision: The manuscript requires significant revisions to address fundamental issues identified during peer review.
- Rejection: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards and is rejected for publication.

Author Notification: Authors are promptly notified of the editorial decision along with reviewers' comments. If revisions are required, authors are provided with clear instructions for addressing the reviewers' concerns.

Revision and Resubmission

- Revision Timeline: Authors are given a reasonable timeframe to revise their manuscripts based on the reviewers' feedback. Timely resubmission is encouraged to expedite the publication process.

If major revisions are required, authors will receive notification to prepare a revised version, which should be submitted through the provided revision link included in the decision letter. It's important to note that revisions should be submitted as a revised manuscript, not as a new submission.

Additionally, authors must include a point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments and suggestions, detailing the changes made in the manuscript. Manuscripts are permitted to undergo second rounds of revision before final acceptance for publication. Therefore, it's crucial to thoroughly address all raised issues in each revision cycle.

- Re-review: Revised manuscripts are reassessed by the original reviewers or additional reviewers to ensure that the concerns raised during the initial review have been adequately addressed. Should the submission deadline pass without the revised manuscript being received, it will be inferred that the authors have opted not to proceed with resubmission to our journal, resulting in withdrawal of the manuscript.

Final Decision

- Acceptance: Once the revisions meet the journal's standards, the manuscript is accepted for publication. The Editors will inform the authors of the decision regarding acceptance. All corrections must receive approval from the publishing team, and our journal retains the authority to make final decisions regarding matters of style and figure size.
- Rejection: Manuscripts that fail to address the reviewers' concerns adequately may be rejected at this stage.

Ethical Considerations

TJNN upholds strict ethical standards and expects authors to adhere to guidelines regarding plagiarism, data fabrication, authorship, conflicts of interest, and research ethics outlined by international organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Suspected cases of misconduct are investigated thoroughly, and appropriate actions are taken in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Confidentiality

All information related to the peer-review process, including manuscripts and reviewers' reports, is treated confidentially. Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscripts they evaluate.

Conclusion

The peer-review process of TJNN plays a vital role in maintaining the integrity and quality of published research. Through rigorous evaluation by expert reviewers, TJNN strives to advance the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology by disseminating high-quality, original research findings.