Peer Review Policy

What happens to a manuscript after submission, and what reviewers are asked to assess.

Decision required — blinding model Single-blind, double-anonymous and open review were all raised and none has been formally chosen. The text below assumes double-anonymous — the most defensible default for a new journal, since it protects unknown authors from institutional bias, which matters when actively soliciting unglamorous results.

Solar Cell Insights operates double-anonymous peer review. The identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to each other. Manuscripts should therefore be prepared so that author identity is not evident from the main document; guidance on this is given in Manuscript Preparation.

The process

1

Submission

Logged by the journal's submission system.

2

Editorial check

Scope, completeness, compliance. Out-of-scope work is returned promptly.

3

Peer review

At least two independent reviewers assess the manuscript.

4

Decision

The handling editor decides. Reviews are shared with the author, reviewer identity withheld.

Where revision is requested, the revised manuscript is normally returned to the original reviewers. Accepted manuscripts are copyedited and typeset, assigned a DOI, and published open access.

Assessment criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess methodological soundness, data interpretation and scientific clarity — specifically: whether the research question is clearly motivated; whether the method is appropriate and adequately described; whether controls are present and sufficient; whether the analysis supports the conclusions drawn; and whether the work is reported in enough detail to be repeated.

Not grounds for rejection

A device efficiency below the current state of the art; a negative, null or inconclusive result; a result that contradicts a widely held expectation; a study that repeats or fails to reproduce previously published work; or an absence of novelty in the material system where the mechanistic insight is new.

Manuscripts are rejected when the science does not hold up — inadequate controls, unsupported conclusions, insufficient methodological detail, or interpretation that the data cannot bear.

Decisions

Accept Publishable as submitted, subject to copyediting.
Minor revision Publishable after limited changes; normally not returned for a further full review.
Major revision Substantive changes or additional data required; returned to reviewers.
Reject and resubmit Not publishable in present form, but a substantially reworked manuscript would be considered as a new submission.
Reject Not suitable for the journal.

Appeals

Authors may appeal a decision by writing to editor@[DOMAIN] within 30 days, setting out the specific scientific grounds for the appeal. Appeals are considered by an editor not involved in the original decision. Disagreement with a reviewer's scientific judgement is not, on its own, a basis for appeal.

Competing interests and confidentiality

Reviewers must decline an invitation where they have a competing interest — recent collaboration, shared institution, commercial interest, or a personal relationship with an author. Submitted manuscripts are confidential documents. They must not be shared, used, or fed into any third-party system, including generative AI tools, without the explicit permission of the editor.

Reviewer recognition

With the reviewer's consent, Solar Cell Insights publishes an annual list of reviewers who contributed during the year, and can confirm review activity for institutional reporting on request.