arrow icon
APS Journals

Authors

Referees

Librarians

Students

APS Members

APS » Journals » Physical Review Letters » Referee Response Form for Physical Review Letters

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

November 2010

Referee Response Form for Physical Review Letters

Insert X in the parentheses in the response form as appropriate.

Referee:

Manuscript Number:

Author:

Title:

PRL aims to publish physics research that is valid, innovative, and significant, with broad implications. A Letter should change or influence the research or scientific understanding of many physicists, and sometimes nonphysicists, and thus be essential reading for many.

The questions below all lead to the basic question about any possible Letter: Why should this paper be published in PRL, rather than in the Physical Review, which also publishes papers that significantly advance physics? Please address them in your report, as appropriate.

  • In what ways does the work reported here open either a new area of research or new avenues of research within an established area? How will it change the research of others?
  • What critical outstanding problem does this manuscript treat, and how? Does it solve the problem, or make essential steps towards solving it?
  • If the work employs a new technique or methodology, what can it teach us? Why is it important to physics and how will physicists use it?
  • Is this manuscript of unusual intrinsic interest? If so, why? What message does it convey to nonspecialists?

I. Based on the above, please judge the manuscript regarding its:

1) Impact on the specific field: very low (  )  (  )  (  )  (  )  (  )  very high
2) Impact on physics research: very narrow (  )  (  )  (  )  (  )  (  )  very broad
3) Degree of innovation: very low (  )  (  )  (  )  (  )  (  )  very high
4) Validity: not valid (  )  (  )  (  )  (  )  (  )  valid
5) Readability for a nonspecialist: not accessible (  )  (  )  (  )  (  )  (  )  very accessible

II. Your detailed report:

Begin report (use as much space as is needed):


End report.

Additional remarks to the editors only:

Would you be willing to review the paper again? (  ) yes  (  ) no

Could you suggest alternative referees?

III. Brief Recommendation:

a) Publish in PRL as written or after minor revision.(  )
b) Reconsider for PRL following revision.(  )
c) Perhaps reconsider for PRL after extensive revision.(  )
d) Do not reconsider for PRL.(  )
e) Publish in Physical Review with little or no revision.(  )
f) Submit to Physical Review after substantial revision.(  )
g) Submit to another journal.(  )
h) Do not publish in any journal.(  )

IV. Additional recommendations for Physical Review:

Inclusion of detailed advice in your report is helpful to the editors of the Physical Review and to the authors. Please do not use a recommendation to publish in the Physical Review to soften a rejection from PRL. If the Physical Review is a suitable venue, which journal is best?

PRA (  )   PRB (  )   PRC (  )   PRD (  )   PRE (  )

Which article type?

Rapid Communication (  )   Regular Article (  )    Brief Report (  )