The NATO Journal of Science and Technology is a scientific journal showcasing the NATO Science and Technology Office (STO)’s research outcomes. The journal takes its duty to the knowledge community very seriously, and aims to present Authors with as much constructive feedback as possible. Reviewers are the lynchpin of this process, providing precious feedback, which the journal’s Editors contextualise. 

Manuscript submitted to the NATO Journal of Science and Technology undergo a single blind peer review process with a minimum of two independent reviewers. Reviewers are invited via email: the journal Editorial Office will contact them, with an invite to review a manuscript whose abstract is provided.

Upon receiving an invite to review, the journal kindly ask that Reviewers check if there are any conflicts of interest (personal, professional, or financial). Please decline the invite (if possible, suggesting alternative reviewers) should you identify any conflicts, or be unable to execute the review within specified timelines. Please also be aware of any bias that might affect your feedback and comments.

Joint reviews – whereby the invited Reviewer approaches a colleague or someone within their network to collaborate on the review – are possible, as long as the Editor in charge of the manuscript is advised and grants their explicit authorisation.

Once the Reviewer accepts the invite, the Editor will provide them with the integral manuscript and a journal-specific feedback form, and agree a date for the return of the review.

Recommendations

The NATO Journal of Science and Technology currently reviews four types of manuscripts: research papers, opinion papers, systematic reviews, and method articles (including case studies). Whilst each submission type requires slightly different considerations, the following recommendations for Reviewers apply across all manuscript types:

  • Timeliness: respond promptly to an invite to review. If you are unable or unavailable to review, please suggest an alternative reviewer; this is greatly appreciated. If you do accept to review, please submit your feedback within the agreed timelines (usually 3 weeks).
  • Integrity: If there is a conflict of interest with the paper, research area, or Authors of the manuscript you are invited to review, please advise the Editor when you decline the invite. Examples of conflicts are overlaps in the subject of the manuscript with your own research; funding/ security considerations; or perhaps you have submitted a paper with a similar topic elsewhere.
  • Confidentiality: do not discuss the manuscript you are reviewing with others. Although the research considered in the journal is suitable for open access/ unclassified publication, and/or may be available in pre-print or via an archive, the manuscript and its contents are still confidential until the research is published by the journal as the ‘version of record’.
  • Form: provide pertinent, constructive comments. Feedback is always better taken on board if written in effective, precise, incisive language. Particularly appreciated are comments on methods; on the utility, military application, and impact of the research presented in the article; on the robustness of the research; and on relevant, supporting literature.
  • Language: Authors hail from across NATO Nations, and English may not be their first language. Whilst the journal encourages authors to submit manuscripts proofed for linguistic correctness (so that Editors and Reviewers may focus on the research content of the paper, and not be distracted by language issues), please be considerate of the fact that language itself should not be a barrier to the dissemination of good research. If you have specific language or editing comments, do include them in a separate paragraph of your commentary.
  • Use of AI: the journal does not encourage the use of Generative AIs or Large Language Models in reviews of papers submitted to the journal. Uploading manuscripts to software or AI-assisted tools means their confidentiality is no longer assured. If you use specific software to edit your analysis or review, please include a note to this effect (detailing what kind of software you used, and for which purposes).
  • Self-citations: Reviewers are valued experts, invited to provide feedback on the research of others based on their experience and specific areas of knowledge. Please be aware, though, when suggesting alternative literature or research for authors to consider, to not recommend sources exclusively related to your own work and publications.

We recommend that Reviewers are aware of the NATO Journal of Science and Technology’s Publication Ethics Policies.

Ethics

The NATO Journal of Science and Technology upholds the highest standards throughout its review and publication process, and abides by the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) guidelines for best practice and dispute resolutions. COPE provides resources for reviewers – available here

If in any doubt, please contact the Editor who invited you to review the manuscript, or the journal’s This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Thank you to Reviewers

The journal is extremely grateful for the support of its Reviewers, whose constructive criticism enables Authors to improve upon their work, and the journal to publish high quality scientific and technological research.

The NATO Journal of Science and Technology will:

  • Publish a “Thank you to Reviewers” at the end of each calendar year, listing those who have reviewed for the journal in the previous 12 months (and given their consent to be included).
  • Provide a Certificate of Review (available once a final decision has been taken on a manuscript) upon request.

 

Contact

Please contact the NATO Journal of Science and Technology This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. with any queries.