Information for Reviewers*

Reviewer Login

Nuclear Technology uses the Editorial Manager electronic submission and review system. To log in, either click the deep link in your review invitation e-mail or go to ntech.edmgr.com, enter your username and password, and click the "Reviewer Login" button. You may then view and/or download manuscripts assigned to you for review or submit your comments to the editor.

Updating Your Information with Editorial Manager

If you receive a request to review but have not registered with Editorial Manager, it means that either the journal's editor or the journal office registered you into the system as a potential reviewer. Your username and password will have been provided in the e-mail with the review request. If you forgot your login information or are having any difficulty, you can click the "Send Login Details" link on the Editorial Manager login page, or send an e-mail to the journal office. Your username and password are confidential to you, so do not share this information with anyone.

When you log into the system for the first time, please click "Update My Information" in the navigation bar at the top of the page. There you can change your username and password, verify that the information provided is correct, and add more pertinent contact details.

General Peer Review Information

Generally, manuscripts are sent to two or three referees. The identity of referees is strictly confidential, and you are requested to not communicate directly with the authors. You are also asked to not disclose your identity to the authors or discuss the papers you have reviewed with colleagues until the reviewed paper has been published.

The editor of the journal invites people to serve as the reviewers of a manuscript. If invited, you will receive an e-mail invitation. Log in to the Editorial Manager site at ntech.edmgr.com using your username and password or the deep link provided in the e-mail. You will have a chance to review the manuscript's abstract before agreeing or declining to review the manuscript. If you agree, you are requested to read the manuscript and submit a review through Editorial Manager. Common reasons to decline to review a manuscript include if you have a conflict of interest, if it is outside your scope of expertise, or if you are unable to complete the review within the time requested.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Please view this journal’s full AI policy here: https://taylorandfrancis.com/our-policies/ai-policy/

Editors’ and peer reviewers’ use of manuscripts in Generative AI systems may pose a risk to confidentiality, proprietary rights, and data, including personally identifiable information. Therefore, editors and peer reviewers must not upload files, images, or information from unpublished manuscripts into Generative AI tools. Failure to comply with this policy may infringe upon the rightsholder’s intellectual property.

Peer reviewers are chosen experts in their fields and should not use Generative AI for analysis or to summarize submitted articles or portions thereof in the creation of their reviews. Generative AI may only be utilized to assist with improving review language, but peer reviewers at all times remain responsible for ensuring the accuracy and integrity of their reviews.

Author use of AI is discussed in the link to the full AI policy, above. Peer reviewers should not use AI detection tools as part of their review process, due in part to the possibility of false positives. If unethical AI use is suspected, please contact the journal editor.

Performing the Manuscript Review

When reviewing the submitted contribution, please consider the following list of questions, at least partially, in your review.**

1. Is the subject of interest to the readership of the journal?
2. Is this an original contribution? (Or, an informative review?)
3. Are the title and abstract adequate to the content of the paper?
4. Does the article give adequate credit to earlier work in the field? If not, please include the omitted references.
5. Is the manuscript correct and complete? List technical errors or unjustified conclusions.
6. Is the subject presented clearly?
7. Do you recommend
   1. publication in the present form?
   2. publication after revision along the lines indicated?
   3. a complete rewrite?
   4. rejection?
8. If accepted, should it be published***
   1. as a technical paper?
   2. as a technical note?
   3. as a critical review?

If revision or rejection is indicated, please give detailed, specific, and substantive comments.

*For detailed instructions for reviewing papers in Editorial Manager, please download the Tutorial for Reviewers.

**A referee is not expected to edit a manuscript. However, in addition to your review, we would appreciate information on any editorial/language errors that you may note, or minor changes in wording you may wish to suggest. Please indicate such errors or suggested changes on the manuscript file and upload it along with your review.

***Technical papers present archival, original contributions to the field of knowledge.Technical notes describe preliminary results or limited extensions of previously reported work. Critical reviews combine a focused topical overview with an extensive literature review to critically evaluate the state-of-the-art, but do not necessarily add new knowledge to the field.

Thank you for acting as a referee for our journal and the communities that Nuclear Technology serves. We rely on the expertise of our reviewers and their reports to maintain the quality of the journal.