The peer review process is critical to maintain the quality and integrity of published research. The followings are detailed peer review guidelines of Smart Materials and Devices (SMD):

1. Peer Review Model

The journal employs a single-blind peer-review process, where the reviewers know the identity of the authors, but the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. The main purpose of this review model is to protect the anonymity of the reviewers, thereby encouraging them to provide honest and unbiased feedback.

2. Manuscript Types Eligible for Peer Review

All accepted manuscript types in the journal, except for Editorials, will undergo rigorous peer reviews. Find more information at Editorial Policies.

3. Online Manuscript System

The manuscripts submitted to the journal are processed through the online manuscript system, Intellimanus, which adheres to international publishing standards as outlined by COPE.

4. Publication Criteria

The publication criteria typically involve several aspects to ensure the scientific validity, completeness, and ethical conduct of the research. Here are the main standards:

● Scientific validity
- Innovation: The research must be innovative, presenting new findings or theories.
- Methodology: Appropriate research methods and experimental design should be used to ensure the reliability and reproducibility of the data.
- Data analysis: Data analysis should use correct statistical methods, and the results should be significant and interpretable.

● Completeness
- Clear structure: The paper should have a clear structure as per the requirements.
- Literature review: Include a comprehensive literature review, citing relevant and recent studies.
- Figures and appendices: Provide necessary figures and appendices to support the data and conclusions.

● Ethical conduct
- Ethical approval: Research involving human subjects or animal experiments must obtain appropriate ethical approval.
- Informed consent: Participants must give informed consent, clearly understanding their role and rights in the research.
- Data confidentiality: Ensure the confidentiality of participants' data to prevent unauthorized disclosure.

● Transparency
- Method transparency: Describe research methods in detail to allow others to replicate the experiment.
- Data sharing: Share datasets and analysis code to promote transparency and verification of the research.
- Conflict of interest statement: Clearly state any potential conflicts of interest that might affect the research results.

● Compliance
- Formatting requirements: Adhere to the formatting requirements, including font, spacing, and citation style.
- Reference format: Properly format references according to the corresponding guidelines.
- Language and grammar: Ensure the language is fluent, free of grammatical errors, and uses professional academic language.

● Peer review
- Peer review: The paper must undergo rigorous peer review and receive feedback and recognition from experts.
- Revisions and responses: Make revisions based on reviewers' suggestions and provide detailed responses.

● Publication ethics
- Duplicate publication: Avoid duplicate publication or self-plagiarism; the same research should not be published in multiple journals.
- Authorship: Ensure that all authors have made substantial contributions to the research, avoiding false attribution or plagiarism.

● Citations and references
- Complete citations: Properly cite all referenced literature to avoid plagiarism.
- Detailed references: Provide detailed and accurate references to support the research background and conclusions.
All work during the peer-review process is conducted in accordance with the above publication criteria.

5. Editorial Freedom

Under strict adherence to the guidelines of COPE, ICMJE, and WAME, the journal ensures that the Editorial Board maintains independent rights and autonomy in determining the journal's content, selection, and editorial decisions. This freedom allows Editors to autonomously decide on accepting or rejecting submissions and determining the final content based on academic standards, the journal's positioning, and its mission. The journal ensures the effective realization of editorial freedom through the following measures:

● Independent Editorial Board: Establishing an independent Editorial Board. These Editors have the authority to independently decide whether to accept or reject submissions and how to edit and publish them based on academic quality and journal positioning.
● Establishment of clear editorial policies and guidelines: The journal develops clear editorial policies and guidelines to ensure that all Editorial Board understand the journal's academic mission and operational procedures. These policies include manuscript review processes, decision criteria, ethical guidelines, and conflict resolution mechanisms.
● Transparent and open decision-making processes: The journal ensures transparency and fairness in the editorial decision-making process. This includes transparent editorial policies, manuscript review procedures, and how to handle feedback and complaints from authors and readers. Please refer to Editorial Process of the journal.
● Regular audit and evaluation mechanisms: The journal conducts regular assessments and reviews of the Editorial Board to ensure compliance with best practices and the journal's guidelines when exercising editorial freedom.

Through these measures, the journal can effectively guarantee and uphold editorial freedom, ensuring the journal's independence, fairness, and academic reputation within the scholarly community.

6. Peer Review Process

6.1 Initial Assessment and Decision

1) All manuscripts must align with the journal's scope.
2) Correct manuscript type and Figures of high resolution.
3) Accurate referencing of Figures and Tables.
4) Ethical approval and informed consent must be provided if applicable.
5) Permissions for copyrighted Tables or Figures must be included.
6) Manuscripts will be checked via iThenticate and must have a similarity rate below 20% from multiple sources and below 10% from any single source, with no similarities in the Abstract, Results, and Discussion sections.
7) Manuscripts should be written in clear, scientific English.
8) The Academic Editor (Editor-in-Chief/Associate Editors/Guest Editor) conduct a preliminary quality check.
Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria will be rejected without external review, or required to revise to meet the criteria. Only submissions that pass the initial assessment will be sent for formal peer review.

6.2 Peer Review

1) Typically, two external reviewer reports are required for each manuscript. See more details in the Section 6.4 Peer Reviewers.
2) If reviews are highly conflicting, the Editor-in-Chief/Associate Editor will make a First Decision.
3) Reviewers should provide detailed comments and a recommendation to the Editors and suggest specific and substantive revisions to the authors. See more details in the Section 6.5 Qualified Review Report.

6.3 Editor's Decision

After peer review, Academic Editor(s) make decisions based on the reviewers' comments and recommendations. The decisions typically fall into several categories:
Accept: Accept as is. The paper is accepted without any modifications or with only minor editorial changes.
Minor Revisions: The paper requires minor revisions, such as clarifications, language polishing, or minor additions that do not affect the main conclusions of the study.
Major Revisions: The paper needs significant revisions, such as additional experiments, re-analysis of data, or substantial improvements to the methodology. The revised paper will need to be resubmitted and may undergo another round of peer review.
Reject
-Reject: The paper does not meet the journal's standards or has significant flaws, and therefore, the editor decides to reject it. It is not eligible for resubmission.
-Reject and Resubmit: The paper shows potential but requires substantial revisions and improvements. Authors are encouraged to revise extensively and resubmit. The resubmitted paper will be treated as a new submission and undergo peer review again.

These decisions ensure that published papers meet high academic and research standards, promoting scholarly exchange and advancement of knowledge. 
Note: Members of Editorial Board do not handle their own submissions. These submissions undergo a rigorous double-blind peer-review process, reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. Final decisions are made double-blind by anonymous members of Editorial Board who have no conflicts of interest with the authors. And the Editorial Board members must disclose their roles in the journal in the Conflict of Interests section. 
For Special Issue manuscripts, Guest Editor could make recommendations in the process of initial check and Editor's decision, but the final decision rests with the member of Editorial Board.

6.4 Peer Reviewers

Effective reviewer selection is pivotal in our publication process. During the peer review process, reviewers are required to possess the following accurate qualifications:
● Hold a doctoral degree and have an institutional email address.
● Professional knowledge and experience: Reviewers must have profound expertise and extensive research experience relevant to the manuscript's topic.
● Academic background: Typically, active researchers or professionals in the field, capable of assessing the academic quality and novelty of the paper.
● Objectivity and independence: They should objectively and impartially evaluate the paper, avoiding personal biases and conflicts of interest.
● Publication record: Reviewers should have a track record of publications in the relevant field or recognized academic contributions.
● Reviewing experience: Preferably, they should have prior experience in peer review, understanding the process and standards involved.
● Time management: They should be able to complete reviews on schedule and provide thorough and constructive feedback.

These requirements ensure that reviewers can provide high-quality peer review services, contributing to the scholarly rigor and reliability of published papers.  
Authors are encouraged to suggest potential reviewers, but the final decision on their inclusion rests with the Editor. Authors may also request the exclusion of specific individuals or laboratories, which we will carefully consider and honor. Please be aware that providing false reviewer information may result in manuscript rejection and further investigation for misconduct.

6.5 Qualified Review Report

Reviewers are expected to submit review reports including the following key sections, ensuring it is comprehensive, constructive, and professional:

Introduction
● Acknowledgment: Thank the author(s) for submitting the manuscript and acknowledge their effort and research.
● Manuscript information Clearly state the title and identification number of the manuscript under review.

Overall Assessment
● Importance of the research: Briefly assess the significance and innovation of the research topic.
● General impression: Summarize your overall impression of the manuscript, including its main strengths and weaknesses.

Detailed Feedback
● Research design and methods
- Research question and hypothesis: Evaluate whether the research question is clear and the hypothesis is reasonable.
- Research methods: Assess the appropriateness and application of the research methods, including the description of experimental design, sample selection, and data collection process.
- Data analysis: Evaluate whether the data analysis methods are appropriate and whether the correct statistical tools were used.
● Results and discussion
- Clarity of results: Assess whether the results section is clear, concise, and supported by sufficient data.
- Depth of discussion: Evaluate whether the discussion adequately interprets the results and whether it aligns with or provides new insights compared to existing literature.
● Literature citations
- Literature review: Assess whether the literature review is comprehensive and relevant, and whether it includes the latest and most important studies.
- Accuracy of citations: Check whether the citations are accurate and correctly reflect the content of the referenced works.
● Major issues
- Key deficiencies: Identify and describe any critical deficiencies in the manuscript, such as major problems with the research design or inconsistencies in the data.
- Supplementary experiments: If necessary, suggest additional experiments or further data analysis.

Specific Recommendations
● Suggestions for improvement
- Specific issues: List specific issues in the manuscript, including formatting, language expression, and figures/tables.
- Improvement suggestions: Provide concrete suggestions for improvements to help the author(s) enhance the quality of the manuscript.

Final Evaluation and Recommendation
● Recommendation: Provide a clear conclusion, recommending acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection.
● Rationale: Clearly explain the rationale for your recommendation to help the Editor make an informed decision.

Professionalism and Constructiveness
● Tone and attitude: Ensure the tone of the review report is professional and constructive, avoiding personal attacks or negative remarks.
● Specificity of feedback: Provide specific, detailed feedback rather than general comments.
By including these evaluations in the review report, valuable feedback could be provided to authors, helping them improve their manuscripts while also providing strong support to Editors in making publication decisions.

6.6 Edit Review Reports

Journal Editors carefully review each reviewer report for validity according to requirements in the Section 6.5 Qualified Review Report before sending to authors. We typically relay all comments to authors. However, Editors will make the following types of modifications to the reports:

● Formatting and language editing: Editors may adjust the format of the review, such as restructuring paragraphs, correcting grammar errors, ensuring accurate use of terminology, to enhance clarity and professionalism.
● Confidential information handling: If the review contains personal or confidential information about authors or reviewers, Editors may appropriately handle or remove such content to ensure privacy and confidentiality.
● Clarification and supplementary notes: Editors may add clarification or supplementary information to the review as needed, to ensure authors' understanding and accuracy of the review content.
● Removing inappropriate content: Editors may remove or modify inappropriate or irrelevant content in the review to maintain its professionalism and objectivity.
● Addressing formatting issues: Sometimes reviewer reports may have formatting issues such as unclear layout. Editors can adjust these to enhance readability and professionalism.

Any edits made by Editors aim to uphold the accuracy, objectivity, and professionalism of the review while respecting the opinions and suggestions of the reviewers. Editors typically communicate with reviewers before making significant changes, especially in cases of disagreement or misunderstanding.

6.7 Follow-up Review

Reviewers will be asked to re-evaluate revised versions of the manuscripts. Reviewers should assess whether the authors have adequately addressed previous concerns and provide feedback on any remaining issues.

6.8 Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should disclose any conflicts of interest that could bias their assessment of the manuscript. Conflicts of interest may arise from competitive, collaborative, or personal relationships with the authors, institutions, or funders involved in the research. The Editorial Board members must disclose their roles in the journal in the Conflict of Interests section when publishing in the journal.

6.9 Confidentiality

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality regarding all contents of the manuscript. It is crucial that reviewers refrain from using any unpublished information or ideas from the manuscripts they review for their own research purposes. Additionally, they should avoid disclosing their identity to the authors, both in their comments and in the metadata of reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format.

6.10 Report Misconduct

Reviewers should promptly report any potential research or publication misconduct, such as plagiarism or breaches of research ethics, to the journal Editor. It is appropriate to cooperate with the journal confidentially, but reviewers should refrain from personally investigating further unless requested by the journal for additional information or advice.

6.11 Timely Response

Reviewers should complete their evaluations within the agreed-upon timeframe to ensure a timely review process. Reviewers should promptly contact the Editor if they need an extension to the review deadline.

6.12 Respect for Intellectual Property

Reviewers should respect the intellectual property rights of the authors. They should not use any information obtained during the review process for personal gain or to disadvantage others.

6.13 Acknowledgment of Limitations

Reviewers should acknowledge any limitations in their review due to factors such as time constraints or specific expertise. They should provide a balanced assessment based on the information available to them.

7. Benefits for Reviewers

● Participating in peer review helps reviewers stay updated with the latest research trends and methodologies in their field.
● Reviewers can receive a certificate of review upon request.
● Engaging in peer review enhances reviewers' professional reputation.
● Reviewers are eligible for exclusive discounts on article processing charges when publishing in the journals of the publisher.
● Reviewers can add their reviews to Publons, gaining recognition for their peer review contributions.

Authors with questions regarding the peer-review process can contact the Managing Editor of the journal at smdjournal@sciexplor.com. For inquiries specific to a manuscript, authors should contact the assigned Assistant Editor directly.
These guidelines are designed to uphold the standards of academic integrity and ensure a fair and rigorous peer review process. Your adherence to these principles contributes significantly to the advancement of scholarly knowledge.