Reviewers are expected to assess the overall quality, originality, significance, methodological rigor, and suitability of the manuscript for the journal. Where a manuscript is potentially publishable following revision, reviewers should provide clear and constructive recommendations identifying the specific changes required to improve the work. Where fundamental methodological, ethical, scientific, or conceptual deficiencies cannot reasonably be addressed through revision, reviewers may recommend rejection.

In conducting a review, reviewers should consider whether the manuscript:

presents a clear purpose, research question, and/or objectives;
provides an appropriate and sufficiently developed introduction and rationale;
uses suitable and adequately described materials, methods, and analytical procedures;
presents results accurately, clearly, and logically;
provides appropriate interpretation and discussion of the findings;
draws conclusions that are supported by the evidence presented;
includes relevant, current, and sufficient references;
meets appropriate standards of research ethics and integrity;
is appropriately structured and presented for its intended readership; and
requires language editing for grammar, spelling, punctuation, clarity, or readability.

Reviewers should write their reports clearly so that their comments can be understood by authors from diverse linguistic and disciplinary backgrounds. They should avoid unnecessarily complex or unusual terminology and should provide specific, actionable recommendations. Comments should preferably be numbered and should identify the relevant section, page, paragraph, table, or figure where appropriate. If the editor has requested assessment of a particular aspect of the manuscript, reviewers should clearly distinguish those comments from their general assessment. All criticism should be robust and academically rigorous while remaining respectful and professional.

Reviewers’ Role and Responsibilities

Peer review is a fundamental component of maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of scholarly research. Reviewers assist editors in making informed editorial decisions and provide constructive feedback that can help authors strengthen their manuscripts. Reviewers who believe that a manuscript falls outside their area of expertise, that they lack the necessary qualifications to evaluate it, or that they cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe should notify the editor as soon as possible and decline the invitation. Where appropriate, a reviewer may suggest another suitably qualified expert to the editor.

Reviews should be conducted objectively, independently, and constructively. Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript on its scholarly merits and should avoid personal criticism of the authors. Comments should be clear, specific, and supported by appropriate reasoning or evidence.

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has been overlooked or inadequately cited by the authors where such literature is important to the manuscript. They should also inform the handling editor of any substantial similarity, duplication, or potential overlap between the manuscript under review and another publication of which they are aware. If a reviewer has reason to believe that the manuscript is simultaneously under consideration by another journal, this should also be confidentially reported to the editor.

Information, data, methods, ideas, and other material obtained through peer review must be treated as confidential and must not be used for personal, professional, or competitive advantage. Reviewers must not discuss manuscripts assigned to them with other individuals. If consultation with another expert is considered necessary, the reviewer should first seek permission from the handling editor. These confidentiality requirements also apply to individuals who have declined a review invitation but may have received confidential information about the manuscript.

Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest arising from personal, professional, competitive, collaborative, financial, or other relationships with the authors, institutions, or organizations associated with the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor will determine whether the conflict is sufficiently significant to require the reviewer to be excluded from the review process.

Conflicts of Interest in the Review Process

The journal makes every reasonable effort to maintain a double-blind peer-review process. Nevertheless, reviewers may occasionally be able to identify authors through the content, methodology, citations, datasets, institutional information, or other characteristics of a manuscript. Knowledge of an author’s identity does not necessarily prevent a reviewer from providing an objective assessment; however, any actual or potential conflict of interest must be disclosed to the editor.

Reviewers should decline a review invitation when a conflict of interest could reasonably be expected to compromise, or appear to compromise, the impartiality of their assessment. Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript solely on its academic and scientific merits and should avoid personal, derogatory, or irrelevant comments about the authors.

Use of Artificial Intelligence by Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers play an essential role in safeguarding the quality, integrity, and credibility of published research. Their subject expertise and independent assessments assist editors in reaching informed editorial decisions, and reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy and appropriateness of their recommendations.

The journal recognizes that generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly used for a range of scholarly and editorial tasks. However, such tools may generate inaccurate, biased, incomplete, or fabricated information and may pose risks to confidentiality and intellectual property. Manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential documents and may contain unpublished findings, proprietary information, personal data, or other material belonging to the authors.

Accordingly, reviewers must not upload or otherwise disclose manuscripts, manuscript excerpts, figures, tables, reviewer reports, or confidential manuscript information to generative AI systems or other external AI tools. Reviewers remain responsible for independently evaluating the manuscript and must not delegate their scholarly assessment or recommendation to an AI system. If the use of an AI tool is permitted for a limited administrative or language-related purpose, any such use should be disclosed to the editor in accordance with the journal’s applicable AI policy.

Privacy and Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to Advanced Functional Polymers and Nanocomposites are handled with appropriate respect for the confidentiality and privacy of authors, reviewers, and other participants in the peer-review process. Authors entrust the journal with unpublished scientific findings and intellectual work that may have significant academic, professional, or commercial implications. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must therefore protect confidential manuscript information throughout the submission, review, and publication process.

Manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential communications and must not be disclosed, discussed, copied, distributed, or used for purposes unrelated to the review process. Reviewers and editorial staff must not publicly discuss the contents of a manuscript or use unpublished ideas, findings, methods, or data obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage before the work is formally published.

Reviewers must not retain copies of submitted manuscripts or share them with third parties unless expressly authorized by the editor. Where a reviewer has been permitted to obtain assistance from another qualified individual, that person must also maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and comply with the journal’s peer-review requirements. Following completion of the review, reviewers should securely delete or otherwise dispose of manuscript files and confidential materials in accordance with applicable journal procedures.

Confidentiality may be breached only where there is a legitimate and compelling reason, such as a serious concern regarding research misconduct, fraud, ethical violations, or risks to the integrity of the scholarly record. In such cases, disclosure should be limited to the individuals or bodies responsible for investigating the concern.