General referee guidelines

These Guidelines describe the general peer-review requirements for IOP Publishing’s own journals and many of the journals published on behalf of its partner organisations. Minor variations do exist and any journal-specific guidelines can be found in the Referee Guidelines link within each refereeing task.

Thank you for acting as a referee for our journals and the communities that they serve. We rely on the expertise of our reviewers and their reports to maintain the quality of each journal.

When a manuscript is sent to you for refereeing you will receive:

1. a report form to complete
2. the Referee Guidelines for the journal and article in question.

You will also be asked to confirm that you are able to report, and whether you are able to do so by the given deadline or if you would like an extension. It is important that you let us know as soon as possible whether or not you will be able to review the article, as we will not usually select an alternative referee until we have heard from you, and this can cause delays in publication.

Report form
The report form is divided into sections which deal with accuracy, scientific quality, scientific content and interpretation.

Please indicate your assessment of the article using the boxes provided.

The report form for Fast Track Communications and Rapid Communications consider the urgency and timeliness of research. Only articles that the referee feels are urgent will be published in these sections.

Guidelines for referees: Papers
As well as completing the report form, we ask that you supply comments suitable for transmission to the authors.

It would be of great help if you can address the following key points when you assess the article and write your report. The motivation and relevance of the work are particularly important.

Technical

• Scientific merit: Is the work scientifically rigorous, accurate and correct?
• Appropriateness: Is the material appropriate for the journal?
• Clarity: Are ideas expressed clearly and concisely? Are the concepts understandable? Is the discussion written in a way that is easy to read and understand?
• Referencing: Has the author made reference to the most recent and most appropriate work? Is the present work set in the context of the previous work?
• Balance: Do you think the overall balance and structure of the paper is good? Should the authors concentrate more on a specific area of the paper, or are there sections which are unnecessary and which could be reduced or eliminated?
• English: In general, you do not need to make corrections to the English in an article. It is, however, helpful if you correct the English where the scientific meaning is unclear. IOP Publishing’s production staff will ensure that spelling, punctuation, grammar and format are corrected when the article is accepted for publication.

Quality

• Originality: Is the work relevant and novel? Does the work contain significant additional material to that already published? If you feel that the work presented is unoriginal, it is useful if you can supply references for transmission to the authors. Is this paper likely to be cited in future?
• Motivation: Does the problem considered have a sound motivation? All papers should clearly demonstrate the scientific interest of the results. Papers should not rely solely on previous literature or novelty to motivate publication.
• Repetition: Have significant parts of the manuscript already been published? Serial publications are not encouraged and follow-up papers must contain significant additional new material to that already reported.
• Length: Is the content of the work of sufficient scientific interest to justify its length? Each article should be of the shortest length required to contain all useful and relevant information, and no longer. If you recommend shortening, it is useful to the author(s) if you can indicate specific areas where you think that reduction is required.

Presentation

• Title: Is it adequate and appropriate for the content of the article?
• Abstract: Does it contain the essential information of the article? Is it complete? Is it suitable for inclusion by itself in an abstracting service?
• Diagrams, figures, tables and captions: Are they essential and clear?
• Text and mathematics: Are they brief but still clear? If you recommend shortening, please suggest what should be omitted.
• Conclusion: Does the paper contain a carefully written conclusion, summarizing what has been learned and why it is interesting and useful?

Guidelines for referees: Fast Track Communications and Rapid Communications
As well as completing the report form, we ask that you supply comments suitable for transmission to the authors.

It would be of great help if you can address the following key points in your assessment. The motivation and relevance of the work are particularly important.

1. Does the article exhibit a high degree of novelty?
2. Is the research reported timely?
3. Are the results significant enough to justify accelerated publication?
4. Is the paper likely to be of interest to the journal's readership?
5. Is the paper written in a clear and concise style?

Fast Track, Rapid and Preliminary Communications are outstanding short papers reporting new and timely developments to their journal's community (but are not expected to meet any requirement of 'general interest'). For an article to be published as a Fast Track or Rapid Communication it must make significant advances in the subject and be of current interest. Speed of publication is important for these articles and we ask referees to review them promptly. Only minor amendments are allowed, and if major revision is required we may ask authors to resubmit their article as a regular Paper.

Guidelines for referees: Special Issue Papers
Special Issue Papers must meet all the usual standards of quality for the journal. Special Issue Papers of low scientific standard or those containing research published elsewhere should not be approved. Please address the key points for regular Papers when refereeing Special Issue Papers.

Guidelines for referees: Topical Reviews
A Topical Review article is not usually meant as an extensive review article that may appear in a dedicated review journal; rather it should present a summary of accepted practice and a snapshot of recent progress in a particular field. The article may deal with a subject that is still developing so an exhaustive review is not feasible. Articles are meant to be timely rather than fully comprehensive, but should nevertheless include a general survey of the field and an introduction containing sufficient basic information to make it interesting and informative for non-specialists. It may focus on the authors' own work and contain a mixture of review and original material, and it should be between 12 000 and 18 000 words in length (including figures).

When refereeing a Topical Review, please address the usual key points outlined for Papers taking into account the criteria for an article of this type.

How to return your report
Referee reports should be returned to the Publishing Administrator of the journal, preferably via the web, by e-mail or by fax. The relevant contact details for each journal can be found on the individual journal homepages. We would also strongly encourage those referees who have set up their referee homepage to report using this method, as you are then able to keep a record of articles refereed along with any previous reports.

If you cannot report
If you are unable to report on an article, please inform us as soon as possible so that the assessment process is not delayed.

In this situation it is very helpful if you are able to recommend an alternative expert or pass the manuscript on to another scientist working in the field.

Referee vouchers
If you report on an article for an IOP journal you will receive a voucher entitling you to a number of free offprints of your next article published with IOP.

Journal subject coverage
Information about the subject coverage (scope) of our journals can be found on the journal’s homepage.

EU Data Protection law
Details about our referees are kept on the Institute of Physics (IOP) journals editorial database. This information will be used in connection with the peer review of journal articles and for general administrative purposes.

We may occasionally send you promotional material related to IOP's journals. Please e-mail data.protection@iop.org if you do not want to receive IOP's marketing material.

We take all reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized or unlawful processing.

(Data protection: please contact IOP's representative, Miriam Sawyer, regarding data protection requirements.)

Close this window