Macromolecular Chemistry and Physics

Research Article guidelines

We ask reviewers to express their recommendation in their report. The final decision by the responsible editor is informed by the strength of the arguments of the author and all reviewers and may not always agree with all the reviewer recommendations.

Review Recommendation

In making a recommendation you are encouraged to consider the applicability of the manuscript to the aims and scope of the journal as well as to the category of the manuscript under review.

You will be prompted as a reviewer to select from one of the following recommendations:

Publish without revision, appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is ready for publication.

Publish after minor revision, appropriate to select if you believe only simple revisions are necessary to make the manuscript worthy of publication. These types of revisions include correcting or adding more references, improving the quality of figures, correcting language, typos, or otherwise improving the presentation. Minor revision might also include providing more accurate explanations for some of the results or adding more results of control experiments that can be easily performed, that are not critical to supporting conclusions and that might not need further peer review for validation.

Reconsider after major revision, appropriate to select if you believe that significant revisions to the manuscript are necessary before it could be reconsidered. These types of revisions include providing results of additional key experiments, or significant rewriting to attend to theoretical, methodological or other scholarly criteria.

Transfer to another journal, appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is not suitable for publication in this journal but could interest the readership of another journal. Please specify in the Comments to Editor or Comments to Author section what revisions are required before transfer to a new journal.

Reject – unsuitable for publication anywhere, appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is not fit for publication anywhere and is not likely to become so in the future as it is flawed or has serious problems in the premise, experiments, or interpretation.

Please rate the importance compared to published work in this subject area

The judgment of the significance or importance of a paper is to a certain extent subjective. A paper can be considered important for a broad and heterogeneous readership and thus suitable for publication in a broad scope journal, or it may be important to a particular subject area and thus be more suitable for journals targeting a more specific audience.

When evaluating the importance of the work, please put the reported findings into the context of impact on the subject area and breadth of interest to the scientific community. The level of importance can be rated outstanding (top 5% compared to published work in the same subject area), high (top 15%), considerable (top 30%), moderate (top 50%), marginal (bottom 50%), low (bottom 30%).

You should give reasons for your judgment of the importance in line with the following guidelines:

Outstanding (Top 5%):

• The results corroborate or lead to a new important theory or practice or repudiate an established important theory or mechanism.
• The scientific community has been waiting for such results for a long time.
• The results are of high general interest and merit recognition by a wide research community.
• The results represent a breakthrough in the field(s) of research and are critically important for specialists working in the same field.

High (Top 15%):

The work is a very significant step forward to progress in the field and the reported results are of significant interest to a broad area of research.

Considerable (Top 30%):

The reported results are important for specialists and of reasonably high general interest.

Moderate (Top 50%):

The reported results are important for specialists but of limited general interest.

Marginal (Bottom 50%):

The reported results are less important for specialists and of limited general interest.

Low (Bottom 30%):

The reported results are unimportant and of low general interest.

Please rate the novelty compared to published work in this subject area

Where applicable, we ask reviewers to rate the novelty of a paper compared to other published works in the same subject area.

When evaluating the novelty of the work, please put the reported findings into the context of existing state-of-the-art (supported by references). The level of novelty can be rated as outstanding (top 5% compared to published work in the same subject area), high (top 15%), considerable (top 30%), moderate (top 50%), marginal (bottom 50%), low (bottom 30%).

You should give reasons for your judgment of the novelty in line with the following guidelines:

Outstanding (Top 5%):

The results are highly innovative and conceptually new.

High (Top 15%):

The work contains a very high level of new results, providing significant new insights in the field of research.

Considerable (Top 30%):

The results are novel and provide new insights in the field of research.

Moderate (Top 50%):

The reported results have some elements of novelty and provide sufficient new insights in the field of research.

Marginal (Bottom 50%):

The level of novelty is limited as similar results have been reported but some new insights are provided (incremental work).

Low (Bottom 30%):

The level of novelty is low as similar or better results have already been reported and no new insights are provided (redundant publication).

Which aspects of scholarly presentation require improvement (if any)?

When evaluating the scholarly presentation, please assess whether:

• Clarity: the meaning of the reported findings is clear and unambiguous.
• The language is grammatically and linguistically correct.
• The writing style of the article is appropriate for a scientific publication.
• The manuscript structure is logical and appropriate for the selected article type.
• Display Items: the figures, schemes and tables are appropriate, of sufficient quality and properly labeled.
• The reference list is balanced and gives proper credit to published works.
• The Supporting Information (where applicable) is appropriate, self-contained and needs no additional editing.
• Other aspects need further improvement.

Please check all boxes that apply and elaborate on the necessity of scholarly presentation improvement in the Comments to Author section in a constructive and objective manner. If you have identified other aspects of presentation that need improvements, please specify in your comments. Please note that it is not the reviewers’ task to eliminate all inconsistencies of the work (including language errors) but to identify the aspects needing improvement (by the efforts of authors). Please provide reasons for each literature reference you suggest the authors should cite. The editor may exclude citation suggestions from the report to protect reviewers’ anonymity.

Do the methods, data and analysis (including statistical analysis where applicable) adequately test the hypothesis and support the conclusions?

For publication of an original Research Article, the hypothesis must be tested, and the main conclusions supported by an appropriate choice of methods as well as sufficient quality of data and robust analysis. Please comment on any, partial or crucial, technical or logical inconsistencies in the Comments to Author section. Please be fair and constructive in your requests to the authors for additional efforts and allow some room for scientific assumptions and speculations in the outlook section, as appropriate.

Are the methods, data and analysis described in sufficient detail to be reproduced?

For publication of an original Research Article, the methods, data and analysis must be described in sufficient detail to be reproducible by the scientific community. Please comment on any technical inconsistencies and missing information (insufficient experimental and theoretical details; use of non-standardized technical setup, methods and analysis; missing error bars in data plots; etc.) in the Comments to Author section. As some research fields are subject to a stringent control of data reproducibility, please ensure that the provided quantitative and qualitative data (number of independent experiments or trials, number of devices or replicates in the batch, minimum working area or cycling length for a device, etc.) satisfy the standard requirements of the subject field.

Please rate the practical relevance of this work

For journals with a strong focus on applications, the editorial office is interested in evaluation of the practical relevance of the reported results. When appropriate, please elaborate on this aspect in the Comments to Author section. Please note that high practical relevance is not a prerequisite for publication in the journal but serves the purpose of identifying and highlighting practically relevant research.

Is the research reported clinically relevant?

For journals with a strong focus on healthcare studies, the editorial office is interested in evaluation of the clinical relevance of the reported results (experiments with animals, human subjects and primary cells, approval of drugs by federal agencies, biocompatibility/toxicity issues, etc.). When appropriate, please elaborate on this aspect in the Comments to Author section. Please note that clinical relevance is not a prerequisite for publication in the journal but serves the purpose of identifying and highlighting clinically relevant research.

Do you have any ethical concerns about the manuscript? (e.g., research-related, publishing-related, bias, defamatory language)

If you come across any irregularities with respect to research and publication ethics, please select “Yes” and share your concerns in the textbox.

Most common irregularities might appear in the following forms:

• Misconduct related to planning and execution of the research (animal/human experiments, data confidentiality, etc.)
• Misconduct that might have occurred during either the writing or submission of the manuscript (plagiarism, concurrent submission, dual/fragmented publication, image/data manipulation, authorship, etc.)
• Conflict of interest or bias related to nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, commercial considerations, etc.
• Discrimination or use of defamatory language that may harm others and/or their reputation etc.

If any of these cases or any other ethical concerns prevent you from finalizing your report, contact the editor directly and do not attempt to investigate on your own. It is appropriate to cooperate, in confidence, with the journal, but not to personally investigate further unless the journal asks for additional information or advice.

What do you anticipate your overall rating (a mean of importance, novelty and scholarly presentation) would be if the requested revisions are adequately addressed?

When evaluating the overall quality of the work, please refer to your judgements on novelty, importance and scholarly presentation of the reported findings and identify weaknesses and strengths of the paper. On the scale from outstanding (top 5%) to low (bottom 30%), please indicate the rating the paper could potentially achieve as a mean of these 3 aspects if your constructive comments are addressed. Please refer to the previous scale bars to anticipate your rating in terms of importance and novelty. Please state in the Comments to Author section what additional work is required to achieve this rating. Please be realistic in your requests of additional efforts to the authors.

Where applicable, have the requested revisions been adequately addressed?

When evaluating a revised manuscript, please indicate whether the requested revisions have been addressed by the authors in a satisfactory manner. Please specify in the Comments to Author section any further revisions that are essential for publication.

If you believe the manuscript is not a good fit for this journal, in which journal(s) would you expect to read it?

If you select the recommendation Transfer to another journal, please indicate which journal(s) you believe to be more suitable for dissemination of the work. Please specify in the Comments to Editor or Comments to Author section what revisions are required before transfer to the new journal.

Did anyone assist you with this review?

Please respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during peer review for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring), without first obtaining permission from the journal. The names of any individuals who have helped with the review, their affiliation and e-mail address should be provided where requested so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal’s records and can also receive due recognition for their efforts.

Comments to Author

The system will prompt you to enter comments to the author(s). This section of the report is where you provide your arguments for the recommendation described above and can be used by the author to improve their manuscript for publication at the current or at a more specialized journal. Comments can be entered directly in this field or attached as a separate, sanitized document.

Reviewers should strive to write clearly, especially for authors for whom English is not their first language, be objective and constructive, and treat the author’s manuscript and work as they would like their own to be treated.

As a suggested format, the “ideal” review will cover the following points:

1. Summary
   Begin your report with a summary of what the paper is about. Please put the findings into the context of the existing state-of-the-art and indicate the overall significance of the work. Please provide an impression of the overall quality of the work and its strengths, and state whether there are any major flaws or weaknesses.

2. Major issues
   Are there any flaws (technological, design, or interpretation), what are they, and what is the severity of their impact on the findings? Has similar work already been published? Is it cited? Do the current results confirm or contradict earlier findings? If findings that contradict current thinking are presented, is the evidence strong enough to support their case? If not, what additional experiments would be required? If major revisions are required, what are they? Are there major issues in the presentation, such as language, structure, or data presentation?

3. Minor issues
   Avoid focusing on the format and layout of the article. Please indicate if and where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous, if the reference list is balanced and gives proper credit to published work, if there are factual, numerical, or unit errors, and if the figures, tables, and schemes are appropriate, of sufficient quality, and properly labeled.

A good review is a balanced critique of both the positive and negative attributes of the paper; specific feedback is more useful than general comments.

Comments to Editor

The system will prompt you to enter any confidential comments you may have for the editorial team to consider in its review of the manuscript. These comments factor into the editorial decision-making process and provide a helpful mechanism to convey important information to help guide editorial decision making without being brought directly to the attention of author/s.

Please use the Comments to Editor field to provide any confidential information for the editorial office, to express a potential conflict of interest (positive or negative) as well as any limitations in professional expertise to review specific aspects of the paper, or to recommend alternative reviewers. If any of the aspects mentioned above prevent you from finalizing your report, please seek advice from the editorial office. 

For more detailed information and guidelines on preparing your review please visit Wiley Author Services here.

Review guidelines

We ask reviewers to express their recommendation in their report. The final decision by the responsible editor is informed by the strength of the arguments of the author and all reviewers and may not always agree with all the reviewer recommendations.

Review Recommendation

In making a recommendation you are encouraged to consider the applicability of the manuscript to the aims and scope of the journal as well as to the category of the manuscript under review.

You will be prompted as a reviewer to select from one of the following recommendations:

Publish without revision, appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is ready for publication.

Publish after minor revision, appropriate to select if you believe only simple revisions are necessary to make the manuscript worthy of publication. These types of revisions include correcting or adding more references, improving the quality of figures, correcting language or typos, rearranging manuscript sections or otherwise improving the presentation. Minor revision might also include providing more accurate explanations or other small enhancements to the discussion.

Reconsider after major revision, appropriate to select if you believe that significant revisions to the manuscript are necessary before it could be reconsidered. These types of revisions include adding new sections, providing more examples to illustrate the points made, or significant rewriting to improve the clarity, flow, or quality of discussion.

Transfer to another journal, appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is not suitable for publication in this journal, but could interest the readership of another journal. Please specify in the Comments to Editor or Comments to Author section what revisions are required before transfer to a new journal.

Reject – unsuitable for publication anywhere, appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is not fit for publication anywhere and is not likely to become so in the future as it is flawed or has serious problems in the premise or interpretation.

Is the topic timely?

When evaluating timeliness, please consider whether the topic is of current high interest to the research community and whether sufficient new results have been published to warrant a (or another) review article at this point in time.

Does the manuscript contain a critical but fair evaluation of the literature?

The editorial office is interested in your opinion on the quality of the discussion of the literature.  When answering this question, please consider the extent to which the manuscript provides a thorough, astute and unbiased appraisal of (rather than a simple compilation of) the work discussed, its relative merits and shortcomings. Aspects that require improvement may be expanded on in the Comments to Author section.

Does the manuscript provide a new and insightful perspective?

Please indicate the extent to which the manuscript contains a new and insightful interpretation or analysis of the literature, discusses implications for further research and provides a vision for the future. Please expand in the Comments to Author section.

Is the manuscript balanced, accurate and complete?

Aspects to consider for your assessment include whether all relevant topics are adequately covered; whether the choice of references is appropriate, adequate, balanced, and representative; and whether the discussion is logical, relevant, valid, and complete. Please elaborate in the Comments to Author section. Judicious choice of material is desired rather than a complete literature survey.

Which aspects of scholarly presentation require improvement (if any)?

When evaluating the scholarly presentation, please assess whether:

• Clarity: discussion of the topic and associated literature is clear and unambiguous.
• The language is grammatically and linguistically correct.
• The writing style of the article is appropriate for a scientific publication.
• The manuscript structure is logical and appropriate for the selected article type.
• Display Items: the figures, schemes and tables are appropriate, of sufficient quality and properly labeled.
• The reference list is balanced and gives proper credit to published works.
• The Supporting Information (where applicable) is appropriate, self-contained and needs no additional editing.
• Other aspects need further improvement.

Please check all boxes that apply and elaborate on the necessity of scholarly presentation improvement in the Comments to Author section in a constructive and objective manner. If you have identified other aspects of presentation that need improvements, please specify in your comments. Please note that it is not the reviewers’ task to eliminate all inconsistencies of the work (including language errors) but to identify the aspects needing improvement (by the efforts of authors). Please provide reasons for each literature reference you suggest the authors should cite. The editor may exclude citation suggestions from the report to protect reviewers’ anonymity.

Do you have any ethical concerns about the manuscript? (e.g., research-related, publishing-related, bias, defamatory language)

If you come across any irregularities with respect to publication ethics, discrimination or use of inappropriate language please select “Yes” and share your concerns in the textbox.

Most common irregularities might appear in the following forms:

- Misconduct that might have occurred during either the writing or submission of the manuscript (plagiarism, concurrent submission, dual/fragmented publication, authorship, etc.)

- Conflict of interest or bias related to nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, commercial considerations, etc.

- Discrimination or use of defamatory language that may harm others and/or their reputation

If any of these cases or any other ethical concerns prevent you from finalizing your report, contact the editor directly and do not attempt to investigate on your own. It is appropriate to cooperate, in confidence, with the journal, but not to personally investigate further unless the journal asks for additional information or advice.

Where applicable, have the requested revisions been adequately addressed?

When evaluating a revised manuscript, please indicate whether the requested revisions have been addressed by the authors in a satisfactory manner. Please specify in the Comments to Author section any further revisions that are essential for publication.

If you believe the manuscript is not a good fit for this journal, in which journal(s) would you expect to read it?

If you select the recommendation Transfer to another journal, please indicate which journal(s) you believe to be more suitable for dissemination of the work. Please specify in the Comments to Editor or Comments to Author section what revisions are required before transfer to the new journal.

Did anyone assist you with this review?

Please respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during peer review for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring), without first obtaining permission from the journal. The names of any individuals who have helped with the review, their affiliation and e-mail address should be provided where requested so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal’s records and can also receive due recognition for their efforts.

Comments to Author

The system will prompt you to enter comments to the author(s). This section of the report is where you provide your arguments for the recommendation described above and can be used by the author to improve their manuscript for publication at the current or at a more specialized journal. Comments can be entered directly in this field or attached as a separate, sanitized document.

Reviewers should strive to write clearly, especially for authors for whom English is not their first language, be objective and constructive, and treat the author’s manuscript and work as they would like their own to be treated.

As a suggested format, the “ideal” review will cover the following points:

1. Summary
   Begin your report with a summary of what the manuscript is about. Please put the topic into the context of the broader subject area and indicate the overall significance of the work. Please provide an impression of the overall quality of the manuscript and its strengths, and state whether there are any major flaws or weaknesses.

2. Major issues
   Are there any flaws (e.g., topics, ideas or research work misinterpreted or lacking; bias); what are they, and what is the severity of their impact on the completeness or quality of the discussion and/or conclusions? Has similar work already been published? Is it cited? Does the current manuscript add anything new to the body of knowledge? Do the points of discussion confirm or contradict current thinking and is sufficient literature evidence provided? If major revisions are required, what are they? Are there major issues in the presentation, such as language, structure, or quality of discussion?

3. Minor issues
   Avoid focusing on the format and layout of the article. Please indicate if and where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous, if the reference list is balanced and gives proper credit to published work, if there are factual, numerical, or unit errors, and if the figures, tables, and schemes are appropriate, of sufficient quality, and properly labeled.

A good review is a balanced critique of both the positive and negative attributes of the paper; specific feedback is more useful than general comments.

Comments to Editor

The system will prompt you to enter any confidential comments you may have for the editorial team to consider in its review of the manuscript. These comments factor into the editorial decision-making process and provide a helpful mechanism to convey important information to help guide editorial decision making without being brought directly to the attention of author/s.

Please use the Comments to Editor field to provide any confidential information for the editorial office, to express a potential conflict of interest (positive or negative) as well as any limitations in professional expertise to review specific aspects of the paper, or to recommend alternative reviewers. If any of the aspects mentioned above prevent you from finalizing your report, please seek advice from the editorial office. 

For more detailed information and guidelines on preparing your review please visit Wiley Author Services here.

Perspective guidelines

We ask reviewers to express their recommendation in their report. The final decision by the responsible editor is informed by the strength of the arguments of the author and all reviewers and may not always agree with all the reviewer recommendations.

Review Recommendation

In making a recommendation you are encouraged to consider the applicability of the manuscript to the aims and scope of the journal as well as to the category of the manuscript under review.

You will be prompted as a reviewer to select from one of the following recommendations:

Publish without revision, appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is ready for publication.

Publish after minor revision, appropriate to select if you believe only simple revisions are necessary to make the manuscript worthy of publication. These types of revisions include correcting or adding more references, improving the quality of figures, correcting language, typos, or otherwise improving the presentation. Minor revision might also include providing more accurate explanations or other small enhancements to the discussion.  

Reconsider after major revision, appropriate to select if you believe that significant revisions to the manuscript are necessary before it could be reconsidered. These types of revisions include adding new sections, providing more examples to illustrate the points made, or significant rewriting to improve the clarity, flow, or quality of discussion.

Transfer to another journal, appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is not suitable for publication in this journal but could interest the readership of another journal. Please specify in the Comments to Editor or Comments to Author section what revisions are required before transfer to a new journal.

Reject – unsuitable for publication anywhere, appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is not fit for publication anywhere and is not likely to become so in the future as it is flawed or has serious problems in the premise or interpretation.

Is the topic timely and appropriate for the research community?

When evaluating timeliness and relevance, please consider whether the topic is of current high interest and a subject of discussion or debate within the research community.  Please elaborate in the Comments to Author section.

Does the manuscript provide a balanced insightful view?

The editorial office is interested in your opinion on the quality of the discussion and whether it adds a fresh perspective to current thinking. Please consider the extent to which the manuscript provides a forward-looking and balanced view of the topic, discusses implications and provides a vision for the future based on an engaging though rigorous investigation, interpretation or analysis of the existing literature. Aspects that require improvement may be expanded on in the Comments to Author section.

Are the ideas presented reasonable with respect to the supporting literature?

A Perspective may contain a personal opinion on a topic, often with a novel or imaginative approach to a provocative question. However, statements of fact and reported opinions should be supported by adequate literature references. Please consider the extent to which the manuscript provides a well-grounded appraisal of the topic in light of the supporting literature; and whether the choice of references is appropriate, adequate, and balanced. Moderate though representative referencing is desired rather than a complete literature survey. Please comment in the Comments to Author section.

Which aspects of scholarly presentation require improvement (if any)?

When evaluating the scholarly presentation, please assess whether:

• Clarity: discussion of the topic and associated literature is clear and unambiguous.
• The language is grammatically and linguistically correct.
• The writing style of the article is appropriate for a scientific publication.
• The manuscript structure is logical and appropriate for the selected article type.
• Display Items: the figures, schemes and tables are appropriate, of sufficient quality and properly labeled.
• The reference list is balanced and gives proper credit to published works.
• The Supporting Information (where applicable) is appropriate, self-contained and needs no additional editing.
• Other aspects need further improvement.

Please check all boxes that apply and elaborate on the necessity of scholarly presentation improvement in the Comments to Author section in a constructive and objective manner. If you have identified other aspects of presentation that need improvements, please specify in your comments. Please note that it is not the reviewers’ task to eliminate all inconsistencies of the work (including language errors) but to identify the aspects needing improvement (by the efforts of authors). Please provide reasons for each literature reference you suggest the authors should cite. The editor may exclude citation suggestions from the report to protect reviewers’ anonymity.

Do you have any ethical concerns about the manuscript? (e.g., research-related, publishing-related, bias, defamatory language)

If you come across any irregularities with respect to publication ethics, discrimination or use of inappropriate language please select “Yes” and share your concerns in the textbox.

Most common irregularities might appear in the following forms:

• Misconduct that might have occurred during either the writing or submission of the manuscript (plagiarism, concurrent submission, dual/fragmented publication, authorship, etc.)
• Conflict of interest or bias related to nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, commercial considerations, etc.
• Discrimination or use of defamatory language that may harm others and/or their reputation

If any of these cases or any other ethical concerns prevent you from finalizing your report, contact the editor directly and do not attempt to investigate on your own. It is appropriate to cooperate, in confidence, with the journal, but not to personally investigate further unless the journal asks for additional information or advice.

Where applicable, have the requested revisions been adequately addressed?

When evaluating a revised manuscript, please indicate whether the requested revisions have been addressed by the authors in a satisfactory manner. Please specify in the Comments to Author section any further revisions that are essential for publication.

If you believe the manuscript is not a good fit for this journal, in which journal(s) would you expect to read it?

If you select the recommendation Transfer to another journal, please indicate which journal(s) you believe to be more suitable for dissemination of the work. Please specify in the Comments to Editor or Comments to Author section what revisions are required before transfer to the new journal.

Did anyone assist you with this review?

Please respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during peer review for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring), without first obtaining permission from the journal. The names of any individuals who have helped with the review, their affiliation and e-mail address should be provided where requested so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal’s records and can also receive due recognition for their efforts.

Comments to Author

The system will prompt you to enter comments to the author(s). This section of the report is where you provide your arguments for the recommendation described above and can be used by the author to improve their manuscript for publication at the current or at a more specialized journal. Comments can be entered directly in this field or attached as a separate, sanitized document.

Reviewers should strive to write clearly, especially for authors for whom English is not their first language, be objective and constructive, and treat the author’s manuscript and work as they would like their own to be treated.

As a suggested format, the “ideal” review will cover the following points:

1. Summary
   Begin your report with a summary of what the paper is about. Please put the ideas and topic of discussion into the context of existing literature and indicate the overall significance of the work. Please provide an impression of the overall quality of the discussion and its strengths, and state whether there are any major flaws or weaknesses.

2. Major issues
   Are there any flaws (topics, ideas or research works misinterpreted or lacking, strongly opinionated discussion, bias), what are they, and what is the severity of their impact on the quality of the discussion and/or conclusions? Has similar work already been published? Is it cited? Do the points of discussion confirm or contradict earlier literature? If in contrast with current thinking, is the discussion sufficiently supported by literature evidence?  If major revisions are required, what are they? Are there major issues in the presentation, such as language, structure, or quality of discussion?

3. Minor issues
   Avoid focusing on the format and layout of the article. Please indicate if and where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous, if the reference list is balanced and gives proper credit to published work, if there are factual, numerical, or unit errors, and if the figures, tables, and schemes are appropriate, of sufficient quality, and properly labeled.

A good review is a balanced critique of both the positive and negative attributes of the paper; specific feedback is more useful than general comments.

Comments to Editor

The system will prompt you to enter any confidential comments you may have for the editorial team to consider in its review of the manuscript. These comments factor into the editorial decision-making process and provide a helpful mechanism to convey important information to help guide editorial decision making without being brought directly to the attention of author/s.

Please use the Comments to Editor field to provide any confidential information for the editorial office, to express a potential conflict of interest (positive or negative) as well as any limitations in professional expertise to review specific aspects of the paper, or to recommend alternative reviewers. If any of the aspects mentioned above prevent you from finalizing your report, please seek advice from the editorial office. 

For more detailed information and guidelines on preparing your review please visit Wiley Author Services here.

Comment and Response guidelines

We ask reviewers to express their recommendation in their report. The final decision by the responsible editor is informed by the strength of the arguments of the author and all reviewers and may not always agree with all the reviewer recommendations.

Review Recommendation

In making a recommendation you are encouraged to consider the category of the manuscript under review.

You will be prompted as a reviewer to select from one of the following recommendations:

Publish without revision, appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is ready for publication.

Publish after minor revision, appropriate to select if you believe only simple revisions are necessary to make the manuscript worthy of publication. These types of revisions include correcting or adding more references, improving the quality of figures, correcting language, typos, or otherwise improving the presentation. Minor revision might also include providing more accurate explanations for some of the results or adding more results of control experiments that can be easily performed, that are not critical to supporting conclusions and that might not need further peer review for validation.

Reconsider after major revision, appropriate to select if you believe that significant revisions to the manuscript are necessary before it could be reconsidered. These types of revisions include providing results of additional key experiments, or significant rewriting to attend to theoretical, methodological or other scholarly criteria.

Transfer to another journal, not applicable for this article type.

Reject – unsuitable for publication anywhere, appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is not fit for publication anywhere and is not likely to become so in the future as it is flawed; has serious problems in the premise, experiments, or interpretation; or neither corrects a misconception nor adds to the scientific discussion.

Is the manuscript justified and worth publishing?

When answering this question, please consider whether the manuscript corrects a misconception or adds value to the scientific discussion. Please elaborate in the Comments to Author section. If you indicate “No”, please select the recommendation term “Reject – unsuitable for publication anywhere”.

Are the arguments valid and supported by evidence?

A Comment must contain a logical and valid evaluation of the original publication (or of both the Comment and original publication in the case of a Response) and be supported by sufficient evidence. Please elaborate on any, partial or crucial, technical or logical inconsistencies and missing information in the Comments to Author section. Please be fair and constructive in your requests to the authors for additional efforts.

Which aspects of scholarly presentation require improvement (if any)?

When evaluating the scholarly presentation, please assess whether:

• Clarity: the meaning of the reported findings is clear and unambiguous.
• The language is grammatically and linguistically correct.
• The writing style of the article is appropriate for a scientific publication.
• The manuscript structure is logical and appropriate for the selected article type.
• Display Items: the figures, schemes and tables are appropriate, of sufficient quality and properly labeled.
• The reference list is balanced and gives proper credit to published works.
• The Supporting Information (where applicable) is appropriate, self-contained and needs no additional editing.
• Other aspects need further improvement.

Please check all boxes that apply and elaborate on the necessity of scholarly presentation improvement in the Comments to Author section in a constructive and objective manner. If you have identified other aspects of presentation that need improvements, please specify in your comments. Please note that it is not the reviewers’ task to eliminate all inconsistencies of the work (including language errors) but to identify the aspects needing improvement (by the efforts of authors). Please provide reasons for each literature reference you suggest the authors should cite. The editor may exclude citation suggestions from the report to protect reviewers’ anonymity.

Do you have any ethical concerns about the manuscript? (e.g., research-related, publishing-related, bias, defamatory language)

If you come across any irregularities with respect to research and publication ethics, please select “Yes” and share your concerns in the textbox.

Most common irregularities might appear in the following forms:

- Misconduct related to planning and execution of the research (animal/human experiments, data confidentiality, etc.)

- Misconduct that might have occurred during either the writing or submission of the manuscript (plagiarism, concurrent submission, dual/fragmented publication, image/data manipulation, authorship, etc.)

- Conflict of interest or bias related to nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, commercial considerations, etc.

- Discrimination or use of defamatory language that may harm others and/or their reputation

If any of these cases or any other ethical concerns prevent you from finalizing your report, contact the editor directly and do not attempt to investigate on your own. It is appropriate to cooperate, in confidence, with the journal, but not to personally investigate further unless the journal asks for additional information or advice.

Where applicable, have the requested revisions been adequately addressed?

When evaluating a revised manuscript, please indicate whether the requested revisions have been addressed by the authors in a satisfactory manner. Please specify in the Comments to Author section any further revisions that are essential for publication.

Did anyone assist you with this review?

Please respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during peer review for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring), without first obtaining permission from the journal. The names of any individuals who have helped with the review, their affiliation and e-mail address should be provided where requested so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal’s records and can also receive due recognition for their efforts.

Comments to Author

The system will prompt you to enter comments to the author(s). This section of the report is where you provide your arguments for the recommendation described above and can be used by the author to improve their manuscript for publication. Your comments can be entered directly in this field or attached as a separate, sanitized document.

Reviewers should strive to write clearly, especially for authors for whom English is not their first language, be objective and constructive, and treat the author’s manuscript and work as they would like their own to be treated.

As a suggested format, the “ideal” review will cover the following points:

1. Summary
   Begin your report with a summary of what the paper is about. Please put the topic of discussion into the context of the publication it refers to. Please indicate the overall significance of the discussion and provide an impression of its overall quality and strengths. Please state whether there are any major flaws or weaknesses.

2. Major issues
   Are there any flaws (technological, design, or interpretation), what are they, and what is the severity of their impact on the findings, the quality of the discussion and/or conclusions? Do the points of discussion confirm or contradict the publication the Comment refers to and/or other published findings? If arguments that contradict current thinking are presented, is the evidence strong enough to support their case? If not, what additional experiments would be required? If major revisions are required, what are they? Are there major issues in the presentation, such as language, structure, or data presentation?

3. Minor issues
   Avoid focusing on the format and layout of the article. Please indicate if and where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous, if the reference list is balanced and gives proper credit to published work, if there are factual, numerical, or unit errors, and if the figures, tables, and schemes are appropriate, of sufficient quality, and properly labeled.

A good review is a balanced critique of both the positive and negative attributes of the paper; specific feedback is more useful than general comments.

Comments to Editor

The system will prompt you to enter any confidential comments you may have for the editorial team to consider in its review of the manuscript. These comments factor into the editorial decision-making process and provide a helpful mechanism to convey important information to help guide editorial decision making without being brought directly to the attention of author/s.

Please use the Comments to Editor field to provide any confidential information for the editorial office, to express a potential conflict of interest (positive or negative) as well as any limitations in professional expertise to review specific aspects of the paper, or to recommend alternative reviewers. If any of the aspects mentioned above prevent you from finalizing your report, please seek advice from the editorial office. 

For more detailed information and guidelines on preparing your review please visit Wiley Author Services here.

Reviewer Resources

• Wiley Peer Review
• Better Peer Review guidance
• Wiley Reviewer Academy
• Review Confidentiality Policy
• COPE's ethical guidelines for peer reviewers

Infographics

• Principles of Peer Review
• To review, or not to review?
• Reviewing with empathy

Publication Ethics

• Wiley's Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
• International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP)
• European Association for Chemical and Molecular Sciences (EUCHEMS)
• Singapore Statement on Research Integrity