Announcements

The Editorial Office of Materials (ISSN: 1996-1944) is actively participating in the Peer Review Week (PRW) discussion. Peer review is essential in scientific research and academic publishing, which is why we, as Managing Editors of Materials, would like to contribute to the global discussion, letting our readers dive into our policies and guidelines. 

Our journal employs a single-blind peer review process, where authors’ identities are known to the reviewers, but the identity of the reviewer is not known to authors. Peer review comments are confidential. One of the biggest contributions of open access today is transparency. To support this value, we included the option of open peer review. If the authors opt for this, the identity of the reviewer is still unknown to authors during the peer review, but reports will be published alongside the manuscript. 

Open peer review means that authors can choose whether review reports are published (open reports) and reviewers have the option to have their name on their published report (open identity). If the authors decide to publish the reports, review reports and author responses will be available on the article abstract page. We encourage authors to take advantage of this opportunity as proof of the rigorous process employed in publishing their research. Furthermore, for reviewers, opting for open peer review brings their review work into the open, transforming it into a public and shareable academic contribution. This provides reviewers with their due recognition, allowing them to include such contributions in their academic portfolios, thereby incentivizing more scholars to engage in high-quality reviewing. Meanwhile, as readers or learners, individuals can evaluate research papers more critically and gain insights through openly available peer review reports. 

For Materials, the peer review process should uphold academic integrity, advance knowledge; be fair, inclusive, responsible, and respectful; and foster constructive collaboration among authors, reviewers, and editors to collectively enhance the quality of scholarly publishing. An effective peer review process needs to be rigorous and efficient, fair and transparent, to include reviewers who are experts in the related field, but also pay attention to providing constructive comments, to be handled with confidentiality and ethical compliance, in a human-centered process. Based on these points and values, we keep our structure clear and have defined timelines without compromising the processing speed. Our strict guidelines protect unpublished manuscript confidentiality, provide prevention of data misuse, and we keep strict adherence to academic ethics. We constantly work to improve our editorial process by implementing new tools to help us detect and prevent misconduct. However, we strongly believe that the decisions should remain reliant on human experts to ensure accuracy and contextual understanding.

MDPI recognizes the opportunities and challenges that are presented by the rapid development of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) services such as ChatGPT and other large language models (LLMs) for scholarly publishing. In order to provide transparency to the academic community, MDPI has developed strict policies based on the general guidance provided by STM and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in their position statement. Further details can be found at https://www.mdpi.com/ethics#_bookmark4. 

As the Editorial Office, we would like to emphasize the following to reviewers regarding the use of AI in manuscript evaluation and resisting the reliance on AI for reviews:

• The integration of artificial intelligence into research and publishing brings both opportunities and challenges. While AI tools can assist in language polishing, peer review must remain a human-driven, critical, and intellectually engaged process;
• We do not support using AI to generate review comments or final decisions. Peer review thrives on expert judgment, contextual understanding, and ethical responsibility—qualities that AI cannot replicate. Submitting AI-written reports violates confidentiality, undermines authenticity, and risks introducing biased or inaccurate feedback. 

Instead, we encourage you to adhere to the following guidelines:

• Use AI responsibly, e.g., for improving language clarity, while ensuring no manuscript data is exposed to unauthorized platforms;
• Uphold your role as an expert, apply your knowledge to evaluate novelty, rigor, and scholarly significance;
• Protect confidentiality—never input any part of manuscript content into public or unsecured AI tools. 

We are committed to supporting you with clear guidelines, training resources, and ethical frameworks for AI use. Together, we can embrace technological advances while preserving the integrity and trust that define peer review. 

Editorial Office of Materials,
Managing Editors