All manuscripts submitted to Advanced Functional Polymers and Nanocomposites undergo an initial editorial assessment by the editorial office. At this stage, manuscripts are checked for compliance with the journal’s Author Guidelines, basic presentation and formatting requirements, and overall suitability for further consideration. Manuscripts that meet these requirements are assigned to a handling editor, who evaluates their alignment with the aims and scope of the journal and determines whether they should proceed to peer review. Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal’s scope or do not meet the basic submission requirements may be rejected at this stage to avoid unnecessary delays for authors. The initial editorial assessment is normally completed within one week of submission.

Editorials and Letters may be accepted or declined at the initial editorial stage at the discretion of the handling editor. Other manuscript types that pass the initial assessment are normally sent for external peer review. Manuscripts proceeding to peer review are evaluated under a double-blind peer-review process by at least two independent experts in the relevant field. The journal makes every reasonable effort to protect the identities of authors and reviewers throughout the review process. However, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly where the manuscript contains information that may reveal the authors’ identities, such as explicit references to their previous work or institutional details. In such circumstances, the review may effectively become single-blind, with reviewers remaining anonymous to the authors.

The journal aims to obtain reviewers’ reports within approximately four weeks of the initial editorial assessment. However, because reviewer availability and other unforeseen circumstances may occasionally cause delays, authors are requested to allow up to six weeks before contacting the journal regarding the status of their manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for making the final editorial decision, taking into consideration the reviewers’ comments, the scientific quality of the manuscript, its suitability for the journal, and the extent to which any required revisions have been satisfactorily addressed. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment. Where reviewers request additional modifications, authors may be invited to undertake another round of revision. Normally, no more than three rounds of revision are permitted before a final editorial decision is reached.

Editors and members of the journal’s Editorial Board may submit manuscripts to the journal. However, such submissions are subject to the same rigorous standards as all other manuscripts and are handled independently by external experts who have no conflict of interest with the authors or the work. Appropriate measures are taken to prevent authors from influencing the review process and to maintain editorial independence. Where appropriate, the Editor-in-Chief or another suitably independent editor may oversee the editorial process and make the final decision. Additional independent expert advice may also be sought when necessary.

For submissions to Special Issues, the appointed Guest Editor may participate in the editorial assessment or review of manuscripts related to the Special Issue, provided that no conflict of interest exists. Guest Editors must not participate in decisions concerning manuscripts with which they have a personal, professional, financial, or other competing interest. The journal takes appropriate measures to ensure that peer review remains objective, independent, and free from conflicts of interest.

The journal uses an electronic submission and peer-review system to facilitate the secure and efficient management of manuscripts, reviewer invitations, peer-review reports, editorial decisions, and communications throughout the publication process.

Suggesting or Excluding Reviewers

Authors may suggest up to five potential reviewers, together with their institutional email addresses, when submitting a manuscript. Suggested reviewers should have appropriate expertise in the subject of the manuscript and must have no actual or potential conflict of interest with any of the authors, institutions, or research involved. The journal is not obliged to use author-suggested reviewers and retains full discretion over the selection of reviewers.

Authors should not suggest individuals with whom they have close personal or professional relationships, including friends, current collaborators, or individuals who have co-authored publications with any of the authors within the previous three years. The editorial office will independently assess suggested reviewers for potential conflicts of interest and will not invite individuals where a conflict or other concern is identified.

Authors may also request that up to three specific individuals or laboratories not be considered as reviewers, provided that a reasonable basis for exclusion exists. Such requests will normally be respected where practicable; however, the final decision regarding reviewer selection rests with the handling editor.