Editorial Policy

Peer Review Policy
All submissions to Nanofabrication undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the highest standards of academic integrity and quality. Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process. 

On submission, papers are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief to ensure that they are suitable for the full peer-review process. If there are any aspects of the submission that are not complete or require clarification (for example, incomplete figures or author list) then the submission will be returned to the authors at this stage for completion. If the paper is out of the scope of journals or it has poor quality content, the Editor-in-Chief can reject the paper. The Editor-in-Chief also checks the originality of papers using the Plagiarism Engine Detector. Papers with unacceptable similarities to or overlaps with other publications will be rejected.

If a paper is ready for full peer review, the Editor-in-Chief assigns the paper to an Associate Editor (based on expertise). If the associate editor considers that the paper warrants full peer review, then they will assign two independent reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief may assign papers to reviewers directly. Reviewers selected are not able to check other reviewers’ comments, and the reviews received are completely independent. When reviewers’ reports have been received, the Editor-in-Chief (considering associate editor ‘assessment and reviewers’) makes the decision on the paper, and mails the decision letter to the authors. On a rare occasion, if reviewer reports are conflicting, then the editor in chief can solicit the opinion of a third reviewer.

The decisions that can be made by the editor in chief are:

• Accept as it stands
• Accept with minor revisions
• Major revisions invited
• Revise and submit as a new paper (papers that have this decision require substantial revision, and the paper would be considered as a new submission and undergo the full peer review process if submitted again)
• Reject and transfer
• Reject outright

Authors are given either 2 weeks (minor) to 1 month (major) to revise their papers. Authors can request longer if needed. If not returned within the 1- or 3-month times the papers may be subjected to a long peer-review process. If a revised paper has not been received after 6 months (and there has been no contact from the authors requesting additional time), then the paper will be treated as a new submission if submitted again.

For revised papers, an appropriate and precise response to the reviewer reports should be submitted, along with the revised paper. Once a revised paper has been received, it will be assessed by the editors who handled the peer review of the original version. At this point, the editors can evaluate the revision themselves or assign the revised paper to the reviewers who examined the original version. After completion of the second round of the peer-review process, the final decision is then made on the paper and sent to the authors by editors.

It is possible that the peer review process will be repeated after the second revision if the Editor-in-Chief determines that the authors are able to improve their papers step by step.

After acceptance, the publication team will proofread and create the paper’s layout. During this production period, the corresponding author must check for and be responsive to possible queries.

The peer-review process must be clear and unbiased. Peer-review transparency is considered a crucial factor in the journal’s policies.

In cases involving ethical, legal, security, or societal concerns, the journal reserves the right to seek additional expert input outside the standard peer review workflow. The editorial team may consult research integrity professionals, subject specialists, or institutional committees to determine an appropriate course of action.

Ethics and COPE Compliance
Nanofabrication is a member or follower of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and adheres fully to its Core Practices. The journal maintains high standards for authorship, originality, conflict of interest disclosure, and data transparency. Ethical oversight extends to both pre- and post-publication phases, including investigations into misconduct and retractions where necessary.

Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned justification, supported by evidence or new data, addressing reviewers’ comments. Complaints regarding authorship, editorial conduct, or the peer review process are handled in strict accordance with COPE guidelines. If a complaint involves the Editors-in-Chief, the investigation will be led by the most senior member of the Editorial Board, ensuring impartiality. The review or publication process may be suspended while the matter is under investigation.

Open Access Policy
The journal operates under a diamond open access model. All content is freely and immediately available upon publication, without any access or subscription barriers. This supports a global exchange of knowledge and aligns with the principles of open science.

Copyright Policy
Authors retain the copyright of their published work. Articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0) license. This permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited, and the work is not modified or used for derivative purposes. Authors may archive pre-print and post-print versions in institutional repositories, in accordance with Sherpa/RoMEO guidelines.

Article Processing Charges (APCs)
There are no submission fees or article processing charges (APCs). The journal is fully self-funded through editorial services provided to academic institutions. This ensures full independence from commercial publishing models and maintains accessibility for authors regardless of financial background.

Advertising Policy
To preserve editorial independence, Nanofabrication does not accept advertisements from third parties. The journal does not engage in any commercial promotion on its platform.

Research Integrity Oversight
In collaboration with the Research Integrity team, the journal retains the right to perform enhanced scrutiny on submissions that may raise ethical, security, or societal concerns. Measures may include expert consultation, specialized reviewer selection, or additional editorial oversight. All such evaluations are handled with transparency and confidentiality.