Expertise
Accept when the central chemical topic and the principal methods fall within your competence. Tell the editor where additional expertise may be needed.
Independent assessment
For reviewers
A useful JNDC review evaluates the chemical question, methods and evidence, explains material concerns clearly, and separates scientific assessment from the editor's final decision.
- Model
- Single-blind by default
- Double-blind
- Available on request
- Purpose
- Independent advice
- Contact
- Editorial office
Before accepting the invitation
Respond according to expertise, impartiality and capacity rather than accepting an assignment that cannot be completed responsibly.
Conflicts of interest
Decline or seek guidance when a personal, professional, financial or institutional relationship could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, impartiality.
Availability
Accept only when you can provide a careful report within the requested period. Decline promptly when the assignment or timing is unsuitable.
Review model
Peer review: Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
What to assess
Focus on whether the methods and evidence support the manuscript's chemical claims, not whether the paper matches a reviewer's preferred approach.
| Area | Questions for the reviewer |
|---|---|
| Contribution and scope | Is the chemical question clear, relevant to JNDC and distinct from prior work? |
| Reproducibility | Are materials, quantities, conditions, procedures, controls and analyses reported sufficiently? |
| Identity and purity | Do NMR, MS, elemental, chromatographic, crystallographic or other data support the claimed compounds and materials? |
| Analytical methods | Are calibration, selectivity, sensitivity, precision, accuracy, uncertainty and validation appropriate to the claim? |
| Computation and theory | Are methods, assumptions, convergence, validation and reproducibility information adequate? |
| Data and conclusions | Are figures, tables and statistics coherent, and do the conclusions remain within the evidence? |
| Integrity and safety | Are there material concerns about originality, data or image integrity, ethics, hazards or undisclosed interests? |
Write a useful report
A concise, evidence-linked report helps authors respond and gives the editor a clear basis for judgment.
Suggested structure
- Summarize the question and principal contribution in your own words.
- Identify the most important strengths and limitations.
- List major issues that affect validity, interpretation or reproducibility.
- List minor corrections separately.
- Give the editor a confidential recommendation with its rationale.
Constructive standards
- Refer to specific text, figures, data or methods
- Distinguish required corrections from optional suggestions
- Do not request citations for personal benefit
- Do not rewrite the paper or impose a different study without scientific need
- Use professional, specific language and avoid personal remarks
Recommendation and decision
The reviewer advises the editor. The editor makes the decision using the complete record, journal scope, policies and all relevant reviews.
Confidentiality, AI and file handling
Unpublished manuscripts and review correspondence may be used only for the assigned evaluation.
Confidential material
Do not share the manuscript, contact the authors directly, use unpublished ideas or data, or involve another person without the editor's permission.
AI-assisted review
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
After review
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
Reviewer participation
Reviewer selection is based on relevant expertise, independence and editorial need. Reviewing does not confer an advantage in the review of the reviewer's own submissions.
Researchers interested in contributing to peer review may provide a current CV, ORCID iD, institutional affiliation and specific areas of chemistry expertise to the editorial office. The journal evaluates potential reviewers for suitable future assignments; providing details is not an appointment or a guarantee of an invitation.
Questions about a review assignment?
Contact the editorial office before proceeding when expertise, conflicts, confidentiality or permitted tool use is uncertain.
Contact the editorial office