Structuring Your Report

These general guidelines for structuring a thorough review apply across the APS journal portfolio.

To tailor your assessment, consult the specific journal’s About page for its publication criteria, standards for significance, novelty and audience.

The Main Text of Your Report

Summary:
Briefly explain what the paper is about.

Questions from the Editor (if any):
Address any specific questions the editor asked in the review request.

Context:
Provide your views on:

Validity and Technical Rigor:
Assess the following, providing your reasoning and the necessary changes to address any issues:

Clarity and Presentation:
Evaluate the following, suggesting ways to improve, as appropriate:

References:
Is the literature properly cited, including preprints? See Policy on References to Other Work.

Recommendation:
Make a recommendation supported by evidence:

Do you think the paper should be published in the journal? Does it meet the journal’s criteria for significance and novelty? Why or why not?
Do you recommend to publish the article as-is, invite revisions and re-review, or to submit the article to another journal?
Note that editors strive to reach a conclusion about papers within two rounds of review, and more revision and review should only be suggested if they are likely to lead to a publishable article.

Private Comments for the Editor (if any):
(Editors do not pass these comments to the reviewer without consulting you first.)

Ethical concerns, such as plagiarism or duplicate publication, should be written up for the editor separately rather than in the main report
Concerns about other reviewer reports should be shared in the comments for editors unless otherwise suggested by the editor
Any limitations to the scope of your review in terms of expertise, time, or other factors that editors need to consider