MNM uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are kept hidden from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. A submitted manuscript is initially considered by a section editor. At this stage, the manuscript may be rejected without peer review if it falls outside the scope of the journal, the work is of poor scientific quality, or the novelty of the work falls below that required for the journal.

Section editors are responsible for the reviewer selection for submitted manuscripts, and reviewers are selected based on their competence and previous experience in reviewing papers for MNM. Manuscripts that reach minimum quality criteria, follow the scope and aims of the Symposium and fulfill the Editorial policies, are sent to two independent reviewers for evaluation. Depending on the feedback from reviewers and the Editors’ judgment, a decision is given on the manuscript. It can be rejected, or accepted with or without minor/major revisions. After the authors revise their manuscripts according to the reviewers’ suggestions, they are sent back to the original reviewers. Feedback from the second round of reviews is processed in the same way. The manuscript may be rejected if the suggested corrections are not implemented. The average time from submission to the first decision is up to 4 weeks. Authors are encouraged to suggest up to three reviewers who do not have a competing interest. All recommendations are considered, but it is at the Editor's discretion their choice of reviewers. If authors would prefer a specific person not to be a reviewer, this should be announced.