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 email invitation to review includes links to accept or decline. Before you accept, please ensure that the manuscript content is close enough to your area of expertise to allow you to provide useful input and a prompt review. If that is not the case, please decline; your suggestions for alternate reviewers are welcomed.

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 an aid to help when reviewing the manuscript. Read the referral letter carefully; there may be editor comments and questions, and/or reference material and previous correspondence sent with the referral. When writing your report, use clear, simple wording and avoid overly negative or polemical comments.

We suggest dividing your review into three parts: (I) Comments intended for both the author(s) and the editors; (II) Recommendation; (III) Comments to the editors only.

Comments intended for both the author(s) and the editors:

• Briefly summarize the manuscript. The summary could include a statement on the key results and how they add to the field.
• Assess the originality and significance of the results. Please expand on what has been known before and how important are the new findings in comparison to previous results. How much progress and follow-up research can we expect as a direct consequence of this work? Consider whether the level of significance justifies publication in this particular journal versus a less-selective one.
• Assess the technical quality and scientific rigor of the manuscript.
• 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.
• Assess the manuscript’s presentation. There are a number of details that can be assessed here. You do not need to structure your report according to all of the following bullet points. It suffices to say whether there are no issues, or point out what exactly needs attention and change.
• 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? Is there duplication from previous publications?
• 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?
• When writing your report, please formulate it in gender-neutral terms. If unavoidable, please use the singular “they/them/theirs” in place of gender-specific pronouns.

Recommendation: Your report should include a recommendation to accept, revise and reconsider, or reject the manuscript. Please provide reasons for your recommendation.

Comments intended for the Editors only: 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. This 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, reasons behind your recommendation, or other information you feel would be useful.