PHYS 316: Referee Information

Overview

In scientific communities the refereeing process is essential for ensuring that published work is high quality, accurate research. Typically the "price" one pays for being able to publish in journals is the expectation that you will also serve as a referee for that journal. Here we are going to mimic that process using the papers written for this course.

The review process is not identical to the peer review done in writing courses. The referee's job is not to edit the manuscript, fix grammatical errors, etc. (there is a copy editor for that) but to provide feedback to the author(s) and journal editor on the validity of the research and the worthiness of publication.

When reading the paper you should keep a few general questions in mind.

1. Does the paper meet the general criteria for publication? Here this means is it an appropriate topic for this course, does it mean length requirements, etc.?
2. Is the research reported appropriate for this journal? Here this means is the discussion at a level that students in this class can understand it? We don't need to explain things like conservation of momentum but we would need to explain things like what is meant by a Majorana mass.
3. Is the paper well written? Does it use correct grammar, spelling, etc.? Note that this doesn't mean you need to go through and correct such errors, you only need to point out if there are many errors.

Anonymity

The review process is "single blind". The reviewer knows who wrote the paper but the author doesn't know who is reviewing it. The intention of this is to allow the referee to speak honestly without fear of retribution. In our case I am attempting to maintain anonymity in the process. Note that it is not required to remain anonymous. It occasionally happens that a referee will talk directly to the author(s) to help speed up the review process. Regardless, I will assume that you will honestly review the paper provided for you regardless of any existing relationship with the author.

Reviewing

A simple web form is provided for your referee report. Please make sure you can login to the form. Look over the questions that are asked before reading the paper.

The form is divided into three broad sections.

General Questions

The first section is general questions that you answer on a scale (essentially) of 1-5. These give an overview of your thoughts on the paper. They help the editor get a quick view of where the paper stands in its current form.

Comments to the Author

This is the main section of the review. These comments will be read by the referee and also be sent verbatim to the author. This is where the bulk of time is spent by the reviewer and the author. The comments here should elaborate on the general overview given by the questions above. It should point out the good and bad in the paper. It should provide areas where the author needs to focus. All points raised in this part of the review need to be addressed by the author when the paper is resubmitted.

It is best to write this review in an editor on your machine. Revise it, refine it, spell check it, then cut and paste it into the form.

Comments to the Editor

This section is optional. It should only be used if there are specific comments that you do not want the author to see. In general you should think carefully before putting things in this section. The intent is to have the review process be open, that is, the author see every comment on the paper. This again is the main reason for anonymity, you should feel free to make strong statements about the paper in your comments to the author. Even such strong claims as those of plagiarism should be made in the open comments (unless there are extenuating circumstances that prevent this). In a typical review for a scientific journal this section is often left blank.

Grading

The review you provide will be part of your overall paper grade. This is an important part of the process. The thoughtfulness you put into your review, the care of your comments, and the effort you put into helping the author improve their paper will all be considered.

You do not need to wait to submit your review. The web form can be submitted at any time. You can come back later and modify it (your previous entries will be remembered so you can "submit" the form at anytime). If the report is not ready to be sent to the author please put use the "Comments to the Editor" section to let me know (and remember to remove it when you are done). I will forward reports to the author as soon as I receive the report they are writing and the report on their paper.