Guidelines for Referees

Referees play a crucial role in evaluating manuscripts submitted to the Physical Review journals. Physical Review editors work closely with referees to apply the acceptance criteria stringently and to act promptly in accepting or rejecting manuscripts. Your active collaboration as a referee is central to the success of the journals.

Invitation to Review

The editors of PRX Life rely on experts in the field to provide feedback on submitted manuscripts. Upon receiving an invitation to review, referees should accept or decline promptly, typically within a week, to avoid undue delays for the manuscript authors. Referees may also co-review a manuscript with a colleague or student. We encourage such joint reports in particular for mentoring purposes, to guide the development of new referees.

Confidentiality

All materials associated with the review process are confidential, including the manuscript, Supplemental Material, author-provided material, referee reports, and other correspondence. These materials must remain confidential when you consult with colleagues or invite them to write a joint report. We ask that you include the names and contact information of any colleagues who help in writing the report. When you are reviewing a manuscript, please do not initiate discussions with the author(s); instead, please contact the editors with your inquiry.

It is vitally important for reviewers to disclose any conflicts of interest to the editors. Please let them know if you have a direct competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with an author that could preclude your objective evaluation of the manuscript. It is unethical for you to use the content of a manuscript sent to you for review for your own scientific purposes. The Physical Review journals are members of the Committee on Publication Ethics and follow its guidelines. See also Appropriate Use of AI-Based Writing Tools.

Reviewing the Manuscript and Writing the Report

The following guidelines are intended to be an aid in reviewing the manuscript. Read the referral letter carefully; there may be editor comments and questions, and/or reference material and previous correspondence included with the referral. When writing your report, be collegial and respectful, and formulate it in gender-neutral terms. If unavoidable, use the singular “they/them/theirs” in place of gender-specific pronouns (see editorial guidelines).

We suggest structuring the report in the following way:

• Summary: Write one or two sentences to summarize the manuscript, where you mention the key results and how they add to the field.
• Novelty, Breadth, and Impact: Assess the originality and significance of the results, expanding on what has been known before and the importance of the new findings compared to previous results. How much progress and follow-up research can we expect as a direct consequence of this work, and how big is the potential audience? Consider whether the level of novelty justifies publication in this particular journal versus a less-selective one.
• Technical quality: Assess the quality, the scientific rigor, and the presentation. We are providing a few examples of possible major and minor issues related to this part:
  • major issues
    • Is there duplication from previous publications?
    • Is the work well executed and technically correct?
    • Are the models or approximations used sufficiently justified?
    • Are the main conclusions or claims well supported? In case you think that the results are oversold, please explain in detail.
    • Is there enough information for an expert to be able to repeat the experiments or calculations and check that they are correct?
  • minor issues: assess the manuscript’s presentation.
    • Are the title and abstract informative, concise, and clear?
    • Is the manuscript well organized and clearly written?
    • Is the description of the technical content sufficiently comprehensive?
    • Are the references to the literature appropriate and adequate?
    • Does the content of the manuscript justify its length? Please be specific as to how and where the manuscript could be expanded or shortened.
    • Are the figures and tables clear, useful, and suitably summarized in the captions?
    • Assess the content and quality of the Appendix and/or Supplemental Material. Is the information included supplemental (as it should be) or essential for understanding the manuscript? Should any of it be included in the main text?

You do not need to touch on all of the previous points. It suffices to highlight only what needs attention.

• Recommendation: Your report should include a recommendation to accept, revise and reconsider, or reject the manuscript. Please provide reasons for your recommendation.
• Comments for the Editors: When submitting your report, you will be presented with a table of checkboxes where you can summarize your overall view of the manuscript for the editors. Here you can indicate your recommendation on accepting or rejecting the manuscript and, if appropriate, suggest that the paper be transferred to another Physical Review journal or submitted elsewhere. The “Comments for the Editors” section is where you may include confidential remarks for the editor. These comments may include your thoughts on why the paper is right or wrong for the particular journal, the reasons behind your recommendation, or other information you feel would be useful.