Advice to Referees for Physical Review
The role played by referees in maintaining the standing of the Physical Review journals is a crucial one. It is our intention to apply the acceptance criteria stringently and to act promptly and resolutely in making decisions to accept or reject manuscripts. The active and conscientious involvement of you as a referee is central to the success of the journals.
When reviewing this paper we appeal to you to write an incisive, well-justified report that considers the
- Does the paper contain sufficient new physics that significantly advances the field to warrant publication in the Physical Review?
- Is the paper scientifically sound and not misleading?
- Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work?
- Is the paper well organized and clearly written in good scientific English?
- Are the figures and tables (if any) clear and useful with suitable captions, or is there unnecessary duplication from previous publications?
- Are the title and abstract informative, concise, and clear?
- Does the content of the paper justify its length? Please be specific as to how and where the paper could be expanded or shortened.
- Should all the material in the manuscript be included in the published article, or would
some of the material (for example, long tables) be better suited as online Supplemental Material (SM)? Please see Supplemental Material Instructions.
- Is the section for which this is being considered (Regular Article, Rapid Communication, Brief Report, or Comment) the right venue for this work? Be aware that some sections have length limits.
- If submitted as a Rapid Communication, does the quality and importance of the content of the paper justify the special handling associated with the section?