Journal of Thin Films, Coating Science Technology & Application

What is Peer Review?

Peer review is a process that is used to evaluate and validate scientific research work before it is published. The main aim of peer review is to ensure that the research work published is of high quality and can be relied upon by the scientific community.

The process involves independent experts (reviewers) assessing the research work of others to determine its quality, accuracy, and validity. This ensures that only sound, relevant, and original work is published in the Journal of Journal of Thin Films, Coating Science Technology & Application (JOTCSTA).

How does it work?

Figure: Peer-Review timelines

• Submission: The peer-review process starts when an author submits their manuscript to JOTCSTA. An editor reviews the manuscript to determine whether it is suitable for review.
• Preliminary Screening: Immediately after submission, each manuscript undergoes a preliminary screening conducted by the editorial staff. This checks adherence to JOTCSTA’s submission criteria, formatting guidelines, ethical standards, and alignment with the journal’s scope. Manuscripts that do not meet basic standards may be returned to the authors.
• Assignment to Reviewers: Manuscripts that pass the preliminary screening are assigned to at least two independent experts in the field. Selection is based on subject expertise, reputation, and prior review experience.
• Review Process: Reviewers assess the originality, quality, methodology, results, and conclusions of the manuscript and provide detailed comments and a recommendation to the editor.
• Editorial Decision: Based on reviewers’ feedback, the handling editor makes a decision:
  • Accept — the manuscript is accepted in its current form.
  • Minor Revisions — small changes are requested; further review may not be required.
  • Major Revisions — substantial changes are required; the revised manuscript is usually re-reviewed.
  • Reject — the manuscript is not suitable for publication in JOTCSTA.
• Communication of Decision: The editor communicates the decision and all reviewer comments to the authors, including instructions for revising the manuscript where applicable.
• Revision & Resubmission: Authors revise their manuscript in line with reviewer and editor comments and submit a detailed response explaining how each point has been addressed.
• Final Checks & Publication: Once a manuscript is accepted, it undergoes copy-editing, typesetting, proofreading, and final approval before publication online or in print.

JOTCSTA's Approach to Double-Blind Peer-Review

JOTCSTA follows a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of both the reviewer and the author are kept anonymous. This helps ensure that the review is fair and unbiased, and that the manuscript is evaluated solely on its scholarly merit.

• Authors are instructed to remove identifying information from the manuscript and files.
• The Journal Editor selects appropriate reviewers based on expertise and experience.
• Reviewers receive clear guidelines and criteria for evaluating the manuscript.
• Editors manage all communication between reviewers and authors during peer review.
• JOTCSTA has implemented several quality standards and guidelines to support an effective double-blind review process, including reviewer selection, review criteria, feedback quality, and management of conflicts of interest.

Why Peer-Review?

Peer review is an essential process in academic publishing that ensures the quality, credibility, and integrity of scholarly research. It matters because it:

• Quality Control: Helps maintain high academic standards by filtering out low-quality, poorly designed, or unsubstantiated research.
• Validation & Accuracy: Reviewers check for errors, inconsistencies, and misleading conclusions and scrutinise experimental design, statistical methods, and logical reasoning.
• Credibility & Trust: Peer-reviewed articles are seen as more reliable than those that have not undergone rigorous scrutiny and assure readers that experts have evaluated the work.
• Constructive Feedback & Improvement: Authors receive detailed feedback that helps refine their work and leads to stronger, more impactful research.
• Gatekeeping Against Fraud & Misconduct: Helps prevent the publication of plagiarised, unethical, or fraudulent research and identifies conflicts of interest or data manipulation.
• Advancing Scientific Knowledge: Ensures that only well-supported findings contribute to the body of knowledge and helps prevent the spread of misinformation.
• Academic & Career Progression: Peer-reviewed publications carry more weight in academic hiring, promotion, and funding decisions; researchers gain credibility and recognition in their fields.

Key Features of Peer-Review

Clear Peer Review Policies and Standards

• Established Peer Review Policies: JOTCSTA maintains clear policies outlining the peer-review process, including blindness, number of reviewers, rounds of review, expected timelines, and publication ethics.
• Standardised Submission Guidelines: Authors know what is expected when preparing manuscripts, including layout, citation style, data reporting, and originality and disclosure requirements.
• Standardised Reviewer Feedback: Reviewers use structured feedback forms to provide objective, constructive, and confidential assessments, improving the consistency and quality of referee reports.
• Actionable Policies: All JOTCSTA policies and standards are implemented in practice. The journal has procedures to enforce ethical policies, address conflicts of interest or allegations of misconduct, and check adherence to reporting guidelines.

Peer Review Performance Tracking

• Editorial Team Performance Metrics: JOTCSTA tracks editorial performance, including acceptance rates, days to decision, and manuscripts per editor, to ensure a reasonable workload and timely decisions.
• Reviewer Performance Metrics: Reviewer timeliness, the number of completed reviews, and review quality are monitored to identify reliable reviewers and support those who may need a break.
• Manuscript Stages: Data are recorded for each manuscript’s stage in the review process, including reviewers per manuscript and rounds of revision, to ensure that submissions progress efficiently and effectively.

Transparent Publishing and Data Sharing Policies

• JOTCSTA supports transparent publishing and data-sharing policies that address research bias and reproducibility by encouraging authors to share manuscripts and data where appropriate both pre- and post-publication.

Peer Review Quality Standards

The peer-review team is responsible for upholding the following quality standards:

• Objectivity: Reviews should be impartial and based on scientific merit, not on personal beliefs, biases, or other factors.
• Competence: Reviews are conducted by individuals with appropriate expertise who can provide insightful and constructive feedback.
• Confidentiality: Reviewers must not disclose information about the manuscript or use it without the author’s consent.
• Timeliness: Reviews are completed promptly so authors can make revisions and the publication process can proceed without undue delay.
• Constructive Feedback: Reviewers highlight both strengths and weaknesses of the work and provide suggestions for improvement.
• Adherence to Standards: Reviewers ensure that the work meets ethical and scientific standards, including appropriate methodology and avoidance of plagiarism.
• Transparency: The review process is clearly outlined and communicated, and reviewers disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
• Openness: Where models of open or signed peer review are used, the same quality standards apply as in traditional anonymous peer review.

Post-Submission Steps

After a manuscript is submitted for peer review, several steps take place:

• Initial Screening: The editor checks the manuscript for scope, novelty, and basic requirements.
• Selection of Reviewers: Appropriate reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject area.
• Review Process: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript’s quality, validity, and suitability for publication.
• Decision: Based on the reviews, the editor decides whether to accept, reject, or request revisions.
• Copy-Editing and Typesetting: Accepted manuscripts are edited and formatted according to JOTCSTA’s style.
• Proofreading: The final version is proofread to correct any remaining errors.
• Publication: The article is published online or in print according to the journal’s publishing schedule.

Handling Editors: Reviewer Invitations

Handling Editors manage the peer-review process for each manuscript. Their key tasks include:

• Identify Potential Reviewers: Selecting reviewers with relevant expertise, often from editorial board members, previous reviewers, or other experts.
• Send Invitations: Inviting reviewers and providing information about the manuscript, the review process, and expected timelines.
• Follow-Up: Sending reminders or inviting alternative reviewers if there is no response.
• Monitor Progress: Tracking the status of reviews to ensure timely completion.
• Evaluate Feedback: Assessing the clarity and quality of reviewer comments before sharing them with authors.
• Communicate Decision: Communicating the editorial decision to the authors and providing instructions for revision or resubmission where needed.

Special Cases in Peer Review

Editors as Authors

When Editors serve as authors or contributors to a manuscript, they are excluded from the review process and publication decisions to maintain objectivity and prevent conflicts of interest.

• An alternate Editor (or senior editorial board member) oversees the review process and makes the final decision.
• If necessary, the Editor-in-Chief or an independent advisory board member may be involved to ensure a fair evaluation.

Guest Editors in Special Issues & Focused Sections

• Guest Editors who are authors or contributors to a manuscript are not involved in handling its review or making publication decisions.
• The Editorial Board or Editor-in-Chief assigns a different handling editor to manage the peer-review process and final decision.

Internal & Institutional Submissions

For manuscripts originating from JOTCSTA’s publisher, affiliated institutions, or editorial board members, additional safeguards apply:

• The review process follows standard protocols but is handled by an editor with no institutional ties to the authors.
• Independent expert reviewers from outside the affiliated institution are selected to eliminate bias.

Organization-Specific Peer Review Adjustments

Certain content types (e.g., policy insights, technical reports, industry perspectives) may require customised review procedures while maintaining scientific rigour:

• Manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine their suitability.
• Subject-matter experts from academia, research organisations or industry evaluate the content’s technical validity and relevance.
• Adjustments to the review model (e.g., single-blind or open review) may be applied based on the nature of the submission.

Author Communication

Authors receive reasoned and constructive feedback at every stage of the review process, ensuring transparency in manuscript evaluation and decision-making.

Conflicts of Interest

All individuals involved in the peer-review process—authors, reviewers, and editors—must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their judgement.

• Authors must declare financial, professional, or personal relationships that may affect their work.
• Reviewers should recuse themselves if they have conflicts with the authors or the research.
• Editors avoid handling manuscripts where conflicts exist and delegate the review to an impartial colleague.

Confidentiality

All submissions, reviewer reports, and editorial decisions are treated as confidential throughout the peer-review process.

• Reviewers and editors must not share manuscript details or findings with unauthorised individuals or use them for personal advantage.
• Authors are expected to respect the confidentiality of the review process and not attempt to identify or influence reviewers.

Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a clear, reasoned response addressing the concerns raised during the review process.

• Appeals must be submitted in writing with evidence or clarification supporting the request for reconsideration.
• Appeals are evaluated by a senior editor or an independent reviewer who was not involved in the original decision.
• Final decisions on appeals are made based on the merit of the arguments and the integrity of the review process.