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.
Last updated