Journal of Powder Materials

Journal of Powder Materials (JPM) adopts a single-blind peer review, where reviewer identities are concealed from authors, but author information is disclosed to reviewers. Reviewers interact only with an editor, ensuring an independent review. Peer review is conducted by at least two external experts. To facilitate a smooth peer review process, we ask authors to provide the names and institutional email addresses of several potential reviewers who are recognized experts in their research fields. The editor will determine whether to invite the suggested reviewers.
Peer review process: Screening before peer review: If the manuscript does not align with the aims and scope of the journal or does not adhere to the “Instructions to authors”, it may be returned to the author immediately after receipt and without peer review.; Plagiarism check and duplicate publication: Before review, all submitted or invited manuscripts are screened for possible plagiarism or duplicate publication by Similarity Check upon arrival. If an excessively high similarity score is found, the editorial board will perform a more in-depth content screening. The criterion for similarity rate for further screening is usually 30%; however, an excess amount of similarity in specific sentences may also be checked in every manuscript. If a certain amount of duplicate content is detected, it is returned to the authors.; Duration for the first decision: The result of the first peer review is usually finished within 4 weeks. The editors evaluate the reviewers' comments not only on the novelty and relevance of the manuscript but also on its alignment with the journal’s scope and aims. Based on this evaluation, they make an initial decision on the submitted manuscript, choosing one of the following outcomes: Acceptance, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Rejection.; Revision process: The editorial board may request that the authors revise the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. If the reviewers request revisions, the authors should provide detailed point-by-point responses to all comments raised by the reviewers. If a reviewer’s opinion is not acceptable or is believed to reflect misinterpretation of the data, the authors should reasonably indicate this.
After revising the manuscript, the author should upload the revised manuscript with a response letter to each item of the reviewer’s commentary. The author’s revisions should be completed within 4 weeks after the request. If the revisions have not been received by the due date, the editorial board will notify the author. To extend the revision period beyond 14 days, the author should negotiate with the editorial board. The revised version will be sent to the reviewers for a second round of external review. The manuscript review process can be provided for up to three rounds. If the authors would like further review, the editorial board may consider it. The editorial board will make a final decision on the approval of the submitted manuscript for publication and can request any further corrections, revisions, and deletions of the article text if necessary.
When preparing a revised version of your manuscript, carefully follow the instructions provided in the editor's letter. Submit an annotated copy that describes the changes you have made. Failure to do so may delay the decision on your revision. If references, tables, or figures are moved, added, or deleted during the revision process, renumber them to ensure all citations remain in numeric order.
Revised manuscript submissions should include a point-by-point response to reviewer comments. Authors should describe how each reviewer comment was addressed or explain why it was not addressed, and clearly indicate which paragraph in the manuscript was revised according to each comment. The response to reviewers will be shared with all reviewers. If certain data should not be included in the manuscript, authors may provide the data supporting their argument in the response to reviewer’s file.
The annotated copy should have changes highlighted (not by using the Track Changes function in MS Word but by marking them) with notes in the text referring to the editor or reviewer query.; Review of in-house manuscripts: All manuscripts from editors, staff, or editorial board members are subject to the same review process as other submissions. During the review process, they will not be involved in the selection of reviewers or the decision-making process. Editors will not handle their manuscripts even if they have been commissioned.
Manuscript withdrawal: Corresponding authors who wish to withdraw a manuscript after submission must contact the editorial office. Manuscripts will remain under consideration until the journal office receives this request. Manuscripts cannot be withdrawn after final acceptance, except in cases of scientific error or misconduct.
Appeals of decisions: Appeals against editorial decisions must be made within 2 weeks of the decision letter. Authors should contact the editor-in-chief with detailed reasons for the appeal. Appeals are discussed with at least one associate editor and, if needed, at a full editorial meeting. The process follows COPE guidelines (https://publicationethics.org/appeals). JPM does not consider second appeals.

Peer review policy