Ethics and Governance Policy

The Johnson Matthey Technology Review follows internationally recognised ethical guidelines for scientific publishers.

Authorship

This journal welcomes contributions from scientists and researchers in academia or industry working in any discipline covered by our Editorial Policy.

The corresponding author must identify all co-authors and any other contributors. All authors must agree to be so named and to have the article submitted to this journal.

Three basic criteria must all be met to be credited as an author:

Substantial contribution to the study conception and design, data acquisition, analysis and interpretation
Drafting or revising the article for intellectual content
Scientific approval of the final version

Individuals who are involved in a study but don’t satisfy the journal’s criteria for authorship can be mentioned in the Acknowledgements. Examples include: assisting the research by providing advice, providing research space, departmental oversight, and obtaining financial support.

The author affiliation should be correct at the time of completing the work. For example, if the work was completed while an author was an employee, student or faculty member at another company, university or institution then that should be their affiliation. If one or more authors’ affiliation has changed, the new affiliation may be listed as “Present address…”.

All authors who qualify must be listed. There is no limit to the number of authors that can be listed on each paper. We do not specify the order in which authors must appear.

Authors wishing to publish in this journal should hold suitable qualification(s) and be able to provide evidence if requested. For example, one or more of the following:

Proof of current or past institutional affiliation (e.g. a university, research institute, company etc.)
Membership of a recognised national or international scientific body
A verified publication record in reputable scientific journal(s)

The corresponding author(s) should provide at least one verified institutional email address for our records.

Acknowledgements

You should consider naming any individuals, organisations or departments that have helped with data, equipment, services (such as analytical services), providing images, funding, inspiration or helpful discussions related to the work but do not qualify to be co-authors on the paper.

All people named in the Acknowledgements must agree to be so named.

Peer review policy

All full-length articles will be sent to referees (also known as peer reviewers) inside or outside of Johnson Matthey Plc in order to assess the scientific content and suitability of the article for publication.

Referees are selected from an international pool of qualified scientists with recent publications in the relevant discipline(s).

The Johnson Matthey Technology Review normally uses single blind peer review. The identity of the author(s) will be known to the referees, but the referees’ reports will be anonymous.

At the Editor’s discretion, double blind peer review may be used instead of single blind review. This means that the author(s) identity will not be known to the referees. Every effort will be made to anonymise the identity of the authors. However it cannot be guaranteed that the authors’ identity will not be discovered by the referees. If you would like your manuscript to be considered for double blind peer review, please inform the Editor at the time of submission.

Author recommended referees

Authors may suggest the names of some possible referees at the time of submission. Please also inform the Editor if there are any referees that you believe should not be invited due to a possible conflict of interest. The choice of referees will, however, be made by the Editor.

Note that intentionally falsifying information, for example, suggesting referees with a false name or email address, will result in the manuscript being rejected.

Information for referees

If you receive an invitation to review a manuscript for the Johnson Matthey Technology Review, please accept or decline the invitation promptly.

If you accept the invitation, you will be sent a copy of the manuscript plus our standard guidelines for referees. You will be asked the following questions:

Does the paper offer sufficient background to introduce its topic? If not, what additional information should be included?
Is the paper scientifically and technically accurate in your opinion? Please comment on any problems or areas for improvement.
Does the paper bring something new to the subject? If it is a review article, does it review its subject adequately?
Did the paper interest you? If not, how might it be made more interesting?
Are the contents likely to be understandable by people engaged in other specialities or with other scientific backgrounds? If not, how might this be improved?
Is the language clear?
Should anything be added which would enhance the paper, such as further explanations, illustrations, tables or formulae?
Conversely, should any material be removed as not contributing to the paper?
Are the references sufficient, comprehensive and timely?
Are the conclusions sufficient, justified by the content of the rest of the paper, and not merely a restatement of results?

Use of these questions to guide your report is recommended but not mandatory. You may also send comments to the Editor via email or in a separate document. If you wish to make comments for the Editor’s attention only, please make this clear when you send your report. Any comments which you request not to be sent to the authors may not be taken into consideration.

You should comment objectively on the quality of the science and its presentation in the manuscript under review. Comments should be civil, respectful, non-personal, scientific and objective.

You may make one of the following recommendations:

Accept (after minor revisions)
Accept (after major revisions)
Reject (resubmit)
Reject (do not resubmit)

Please include enough detail in your comments to help the author(s) to improve their work, especially if you have recommended rejection.

The Editor will make a decision taking into account all the opinions and recommendations of the referees. The Editor’s decision is final.

Sharing and confidentiality

All manuscripts under review and all referee reports must be treated as confidential. You must not (except under the special circumstances below) share, use or disclose the contents, author name(s) or any other details about any manuscript under review.

If you have been invited as a referee and you are unable to review, you may recommend or forward the invitation to a suitably qualified colleague as an alternative reviewer. Please copy the editor on any correspondence. The editor reserves the right to invite other referees and to accept or decline any offer to a review a manuscript.

You may share the manuscript under review with a junior member of staff or trainee under your supervision either as an alternative or additional reviewer. Please inform the editor and provide the name and contact details of the person or persons who have prepared the report. You should also append your name and specify your involvement (e.g. co-reviewer, supervisor) and whether or not you have also read and prepared comments on the manuscript.

Referees should not disclose their identity to the author(s).

If you have any questions, please contact the editor.

Unable to review

If you have received an invitation to review a manuscript but are unable to do so, please decline the invitation. It will be helpful if you inform the Editor of a reason for declining (e.g. too busy, wrong subject), but you don’t have to give a reason.

If you have agreed to review a manuscript but are subsequently unable to do so, please inform the editor as soon as possible so that an alternative referee can be found. If you need extra time to complete your review, please inform the Editor.

The Editor may notify invited referees if their report is no longer needed.

Editing referee reports

We may minimally edit a referee report for tactfulness, spelling or minor grammatical corrections. Comments which contradict journal policy (e.g. the use of SI units, UK English or reference styles) may be removed. It is the referee's responsibility to ensure that the content of their report is accurate (where it expresses fact), honestly held (where it expresses an opinion) and adheres to the standards expected of scholarly review.

We reserve the right to edit, disqualify or return to the referee any report that is found to deviate significantly from acceptable standards of scholarly communication.

Peer reviewer recognition

To get recognition for your peer review work for Johnson Matthey Technology Review, we recommend you create a reviewer profile in Clarivate™ Web of Science and follow their instructions for recognition.

Johnson Matthey’s review policy:

Does not allow reviews to be publicly displayed
Only allows reviewers to display the journal they reviewed for

Responding to referee reports

Authors will be given the opportunity to respond to the referees' reports.

You may be invited to submit a revised manuscript. If so, please include a brief letter explaining your response to the referees’ comments.

All responses should be civil, respectful, non-personal, scientific and objective. We reserve the right to edit, remove or return to the author any comment which is found to deviate significantly from acceptable standards of scholarly communication.

If you need extra time or want to discuss any of the referees’ comments, please contact the editor.

Training for authors and referees

Training materials for both authors and referees may be available from various third party organisations as paid-for, free or subscription-based services to participating institutions. Authors and referees are encouraged to seek advice, input or training before undertaking peer review and as needed during the peer review process.

You may also ask the Editor for advice or feedback.

Rejection without review

If a manuscript does not meet journal requirements before peer review, we aim to inform the corresponding author as quickly as possible.

Grounds for rejection without peer review may include, but are not limited to:

Subject does not fit journal’s editorial policy
Subject does not fit journal’s global audience
Poor language, writing style or presentation
Plagiarism, duplicate publication or breach of scientific ethics
Legal advice

In all cases the final decision rests with the Editor.

Funding and conflicts of interest

This journal is open to submissions from Johnson Matthey and non-Johnson Matthey contributors. All submissions, regardless of authorship, will be treated equally according to our Editorial Policy and Ethics and Governance Policy.

The journal is Platinum Open Access. There are no author fees.

Publication in the Johnson Matthey Technology Review does not imply any form of affiliation, sponsorship, endorsement or other support from Johnson Matthey Plc unless expressly stated.

Submitted articles should include details of funding sources under Acknowledgements or in a separate section. Please inform the Editor of any conflicts of interest at the time of submission. You may also include a statement of conflicts of interest in your article.

If you are invited as a referee you will be asked to declare any conflict of interest that may bias your opinions. If you declare a conflict of interest your review will be invalid and you should decline the invitation.

We reserve the right to take action if an undisclosed conflict of interest is discovered at any stage from submission to post-publication.

Errata and retraction policy

Any error which is identified and confirmed may be published as an “Erratum” in a subsequent issue of the journal. Some problems may require an article to be retracted or withdrawn from publication. An expression of concern may be issued if a serious allegation has been brought to our attention.

Errata may include, but are not limited to:

Author name spelled wrong
Author needs to be added or removed
Affiliation wrong or missing
Significant factual errors
Intellectual property or copyright attributions

Grounds for retraction may include, but are not limited to:

Issues potentially impacting safety (including scientific procedures, hazards or personal safety of author(s) or other individuals)
Legal issues (e.g. intellectual property)
Scientific misconduct (e.g. fraud)

Wherever possible all authors should agree to the erratum or retraction notice. The erratum or retraction notice will be linked to the landing page of the original article and propagated to linking systems, library and database resources. We reserve the right to issue an erratum, retraction notice or expression of concern without all authors’ agreement in exceptional circumstances.

If you think you have found an error in an article appearing in Platinum Metals Review or the Johnson Matthey Technology Review, please contact the Editorial team or the article’s corresponding author(s).

Misconduct policy

In accordance with international standards of scientific publishing, we take allegations of misconduct very seriously.

We use tools including Crossref Similarity Check (iThenticate) to check manuscripts for plagiarism.

We reserve the right to reject, withdraw from publication or retract any article which is found to breach scientific ethics including, but not limited to:

Fabricated or unethically manipulated data or images
Plagiarism or duplicate publication
Copyright infringement
Peer review manipulation
Citation manipulation
Misrepresentation of individual’s identity or affiliation (for example, using a false name or email address)

We will investigate and may pursue (including legal recourse where necessary) any allegations that are brought to our attention at any stage of submission, peer review or post-publication.

If you believe that you have found evidence of misconduct in any article under consideration or published in the Johnson Matthey Technology Review, please contact the Editor.

Complaints and appeals

If you have a complaint about this journal or any article that has been submitted to or published in the journal, please contact the editorial team.

If you disagree with a decision made by a member of the editorial team, you may appeal. Please first contact the member of the editorial team who handled your manuscript using the contact details in your email correspondence or on the journal website.

You may also contact the Editor.

If your complaint has not been resolved, contact Johnson Matthey at the below correspondence address:

Johnson Matthey Technology Centre

Blounts Court Sonning Common Reading

RG4 9NH UK

Tel: 44 118 9242000

Visit the Johnson Matthey corporate website for details of our company's ethics policy and further resources.

The Editor’s decision following appeal will be final.

Non-peer reviewed features

The journal occasionally publishes non-peer reviewed features, including book reviews, conference reports, abstracts, highlights, editorials and short profile features.

From January 2022, all content is marked with its article history and peer review status. If in doubt about the peer review status of any content in the archives of Johnson Matthey Technology Review or Platinum Metals Review, contact the editor.

Direct Marketing

We do not do any direct marketing except in accordance with our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Advertising

The Johnson Matthey Technology Review occasionally carries advertisements for Johnson Matthey products or services. All advertisements are clearly identifiable as such.

Advertising is not related to editorial decision making.

We do not carry any advertising for third parties’ products or services.

Last updated: October 2022