L/G–Peer Review Quickstart

A concise, accessible guide for learning how to review atomic & quantum physics manuscripts.

Your Mission

As a reviewer, your role is to protect quality and fairness. You are not just evaluating research — you are ensuring clarity, rigor, and trust in the scientific record.

---

Review Steps

1) Big Picture Check

• Does the paper clearly state its main contribution?

• Is it accessible to a broad physics audience?

• Are risks, limitations, or trade‑offs acknowledged?

2) Detail Check

• Are the methods appropriate and rigorous?

• Are results supported by data and statistics?

• Are uncertainties and systematic effects discussed?

3) Context Check

• Does the paper fairly reference relevant prior work?

• Are alternative approaches or platforms acknowledged?

4) Improvement Suggestions

• Point out weaknesses with specific manuscript locations (section, figure, line).

• Suggest clear, actionable changes (clarify claims, add analysis, improve figures).

5) Stop Criteria

You should recommend reject if the paper is:

• Fundamentally flawed, irreproducible, or misleading.

• Making unsupported or overstated claims.

• Missing essential novelty, rigor, or reproducibility.

---

Integrity & Bias Check (Before Scoring)

• Conflicts of interest? If yes, recuse. Include both direct (collaborations, funding, same institution) and indirect (competitor labs, recent disputes) conflicts.

• Expertise level? State if only partial and note which domains you can fairly assess.

• Bias awareness: Reflect on whether your judgment could be affected by:

  • First impression bias (initial reaction to abstract)

  • Confirmation bias (favoring expected outcomes)

  • Competitor bias (research overlap, rivalry)

  • Citation bias (favoring own work/collaborators)

  • Institutional bias (prestigious vs. lesser‑known labs)

  • Methodology bias (preference for familiar techniques)

---

Scoring Matrix

Choose journal tier → weights adjust (e.g., PRL = breakthrough, PRA = fundamental, PRXQ = applied).

Scores: 3 Exceptional · 2 Acceptable · 1 Needs Improvement · 0 Insufficient

Domain	Weight	Score (0–3)	Comment
Originality & Novelty
Scientific Rigor
Data Analysis
Statistics & Systematics
Clarity & Presentation
Literature Context
Significance & Impact
Reproducibility
Figures & Tables
Conclusions & Outlook
TOTAL	–	–

Thresholds

• ≥85% → Accept

• 70–84% → Minor revisions

• 50–69% → Revise & resubmit

• <50% → Reject

Overrides:

• Originality, Rigor, or Reproducibility = 0 → Reject.

• Impact = 0 but total ≥70% → Transfer to lower‑tier journal.

---

Narrative Feedback

Write 1–2 paragraphs per domain, covering:

• Strengths.

• Weaknesses with manuscript references.

• Actionable fixes.

---

Final Checks

• Avoid all‑3 or all‑0 scoring unless justified.

• High claims must match strong rigor.

• Stay within your expertise.

• Confirm independence from authors.

---

---

Quick Tips

• Be specific: “Fig. 2 lacks error bars” > “Unclear data.”

• Always suggest fixes, not just problems.

• Be constructive and fair: aim to help improve the paper, not just judge it.