For Reviewers

Peer reviewers are essential to the quality of JMRC. Thank you for sharing your expertise with the journal and its authors.

The review model

JMRC uses double-anonymous peer review: reviewers are not told the identity of the authors, and authors are not told the identity of the reviewers. Each research manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. Reports are shared with the authors in anonymised form, and reviewer names are never disclosed. The full workflow is described under Peer Review Process.

Before you accept an invitation

• Accept only if the manuscript is within your expertise and you can complete the review on time. The standard deadline is three weeks after you accept the invitation; please ask the editor if you need more time.
• Declare any competing interest, such as a recent collaboration with the authors, working at the same institution, or a financial or personal interest in the outcome. If in doubt, contact the editor.
• If you believe you know who the authors are, tell the editor, who will decide whether you should continue.

What to assess

• Originality and significance: does the work make a clear, new contribution?
• Methods and reproducibility: are the materials, methods and data described in enough detail for the work to be repeated?
• Results and interpretation: do the data support the conclusions, with appropriate statistics and uncertainties? Are alternative explanations and limitations discussed?
• Presentation: is the manuscript clearly written and logically organised, with informative figures and tables?
• Literature: is previous work cited fairly, accurately and without excessive self-citation?
• Research integrity: are there signs of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or manipulated data or images?

Writing your report

1. Summary A few sentences summarising the work and its main claims, showing that you have understood it.
2. Major comments Issues that affect the validity of the conclusions or the significance of the work, with specific suggestions for improvement.
3. Minor comments Points of clarity and presentation, missing references and typographical errors.
4. Recommendation Accept, minor revision, major revision or reject, with confidential comments to the editor where needed.

Please be specific, constructive and courteous. Comment on the work rather than on the authors, and do not ask for citations of your own work unless they are genuinely essential.

Confidentiality and generative AI

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Do not share them, use their content before publication or discuss them with others without the editor's permission. Do not upload any part of a manuscript, or of your review, to generative AI tools or other external services; see the Generative AI Policy.

Recognition

On request, the editorial office will provide a letter confirming your reviewing for the journal. You may also record your review activity on services that verify reviews without disclosing their content.

Join the reviewer panel

If you would like to review for JMRC, please create an account, select the reviewer role and list your reviewing interests. Researchers with a doctorate and a record of publication in materials science or engineering are particularly welcome. Questions can be sent to editor@jmrconline.com.