Criteria for Publication
Peer Review Process
Upon Receiving a Manuscript to Referee
Writing the Review
Conflicts of Interest
Publication Policy and Ethical Considerations
Opto-Electronic Advances (OEA) uses the ScholarOne Manuscript System for managing and handling. If you have never used a ScholarOne system, please read the User Guide. As a reviewer, you will be notified by an invitation email to review a manuscript.Inasmuch as the reviewing of manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process, scientists have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
Please read the following before reviewing manuscripts.
OEA receive many more submissions than they can publish. It is therefore important that manuscripts are critically evaluated for compliance with the following criteria:
- importance to scientists in the optics and electronics field.
- Novel and interesting.
- provides strong evidence for its conclusions.
- clear logic and the English is reasonable.
Once an article is submitted for review, it will be evaluated by OEA editor to ensure it meets our basic requirements for submission. Once the manuscript passes editor’s technical check, the manuscript will be sent to the editor-in-chief to begin the review process.
Opto-Electronic Advances follow a review procedure where the editor-in-chief will perform an initial review of the article to make sure it fits the aims and scope of the journal. Authors can review aims and scope in the web page .
If a manuscript fits within the journal’s scope and the English is reasonable, the editor-in-chief may send the article to an editor-in-charge who will invite reviewers and make a decision on the manuscript. Once the editor-in-charge submits their recommendation and the reviews, the editor-in-charge will review the recommendation and make a final decision.
Reviewers are experts who critically read and provide detailed reviews to improve the paper. Editors review the comments and will often provide a summary for the authors. The decisions available after review are:
- Accept the paper directly
- Accept the paper after revise
- Full re-review required after revisions
Referee selection is critical to the review process, and our choice is based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, and our previous experience with the referee. We avoid using referees who are chronically slow, sloppy and too harsh.
We invite referees and only on acceptance of the invitation will a referee have access to the full paper.
To avoid unnecessary delays in processing manuscripts, please do the following immediately upon receipt of a manuscript for review:
- A reviewer should act promptly, submitting a report in a timely manner. Should a reviewer receive a manuscript at a time when circumstances preclude prompt attention to it, he or she should decline through the online peer review system immediately, and discard any hard copies of the manuscript that have been printed. Any suggestions for alternate reviewers at this time would be very helpful. A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript should do the same.
- Read the editor's letter carefully and be sure to note any points specific to the manuscript that the editor may have requested your opinion on
- Skim the manuscript and consider whether there might be a conflict of interest for you (with the authors, their institution, their funding sources) and whether you can judge the article impartially
- Consider whether the topic seems to fit the scope of the journal and is likely to be of sufficient general interest for publication.
Contact the editorial office immediately if you anticipate any difficulties in meeting it.
Referees should treat the review process as being strictly confidential, and should keep the following guidelines in mind:
- A reviewer should recognize that a manuscript under review is a confidential document.
- Reviewers should not use or disseminate unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in an unpublished manuscript, except with the consent of the author.
- During review, the manuscript should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought. In that event, the reviewer maintains responsibility for ensuring confidentiality. The reviewer should inform the editor of others who make significant contributions to a review.
Writing the Review
A reviewer of a manuscript should judge the quality of the manuscript objectively and respect the intellectual independence of the authors. A review should be as constructive and helpful as possible.
The primary purpose of the review is to provide the editors with the information needed to reach a decision but the review should also instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable. As far as possible, a negative review should explain to the authors the major weaknesses of their manuscript, so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the decision and see in broad terms what needs to be done to improve the manuscript for publication elsewhere.
Confidential comments to the editor are welcome, but it is helpful if the main points are stated in the comments for transmission to the authors. The ideal review should answer the following questions:
- Who will be interested in reading the paper, and why?
- What are the main claims of the paper and how significant are they?
- How does the paper stand out from others in its field?
- Are the claims novel? If not, which published papers compromise novelty?
- Are there other experiments or work that would strengthen the paper further?
- How much would further work improve it, and how difficult would this be? Would it take a long time?
- If the manuscript is unacceptable but promising, what specific work is needed to make it acceptable?
Reviewers should explain and support their judgment adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Unsupported assertions by reviewers are of little value and should be avoided.
A reviewer should be alert to failure on the author's part to cite relevant work by other scientists. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
OEA committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the scientific community as a whole. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the number of days agreed. If reviewers anticipate a longer delay than previously expected, we ask them to let us know so that we can find alternatives referees.
In order to ensure fairness in the referee process, we try to avoid referees who: have recent or ongoing collaborations with the authors, have commented on drafts of the manuscript, are in direct competition, have a history of dispute with the authors, or have a financial interest in the outcome. Because it is not possible for the editors to know of all possible biases, however, a reviewer should be sensitive to the appearance of conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer's work in progress or published. If in doubt, the reviewer should decline promptly, advising the editor of the possible conflict of interest. Further, if the relationship between the reviewer and an author would bias judgment of a manuscript, then the reviewer should also decline. Again, any alternate reviewer suggestions would be most appreciated.
Publication Policy and Ethical Considerations
OEA editors may seek advice about submitted papers not only from technical reviewers but also on any aspect of a paper that raises concerns. These may include, for example, ethical issues or issues of data or materials access.
In spite of our best efforts to identify breaches of publication policy or ethical conduct, such as plagiarism or author conflict of interest, the referees who are more familiar with the field are more likely to recognize such problems and should alert the editors to any potential problems in this regard.
Of course, as in all publishing decisions, the ultimate decision whether to publish is the responsibility of the editorial office.