Most of your report should go in this section. Please remember to use appropriate language in your comments for the author. IOP Publishing retains the right to make minor edits to reports if the reviewer has used language that is inappropriate or offensive, or if they have revealed their identity on a double-anonymous journal. In exceptional circumstances IOP Publishing has the right to withdraw reviewer reports.
Please justify any literature reference(s) you suggest the authors should cite, especially any to your own work. The Editor reserves the right to exclude irrelevant citation suggestions from reports.
-
Structure
-
Start your report by briefly summarizing the purpose and results of the paper. This shows the authors and editors of the journal that you have read and understood the work. The body of your report should concentrate on the quality of the article. It can be helpful for the author if you number your points. You should comment on the strengths of the paper as well as what could be improved. Please provide full references to earlier work if you believe the research does not add anything new.
-
Length
-
Reviewers are not required to give a detailed summary of the paper. However, your report should be substantial and thorough. You should explain your thinking and give the author and editors enough reasoning to support your recommendation. If you are requesting the author to revise the article, be clear about what is needed to bring the article up to the required quality standards for publication.
Occasionally we receive very short referee reports that do not provide evidence to support the recommendation. On receipt of such reports we may contact the referee to request some additional comments, both to assist us with assessment and to assist the author with any potential revision.
-
Tone
-
Your report should be polite, objective and constructive. You should not make any personal comments. Think about what kind of report you would like to receive.
You may also upload a file containing your comments.
Please use this section of the report form to record any confidential comments intended for the Editor only.
Articles published under the subscription model are fully protected by copyright.
In most cases, following acceptance of the article, IOP grants back to authors of articles published under the subscription model, the rights set out in the applicable author rights policy.
Original content from subscription articles can only be used in accordance with the rights set out in the copyright form, and in the applicable author rights policy. All other uses by the authors require the express permission of IOP and/or its publishing partner(s).
All uses by persons, companies or organisations that are not the original authors of the article require the express permission of IOP and/or its publishing partner(s).
For information on how to request permission, see the permissions section.
Author rights under the subscription model
Information on author rights for subscription articles can be found as follows:
Creative Commons is a non-profit organization that has released several copyright licences known as Creative Commons licences free of charge to the public. The licences grant rights to the users of the content but do not replace the copyright, which remains with the copyright owner. IOP generally publishes open access articles under a CC BY 4.0 licence. This licence lets others distribute, remix, tweak and build upon the author’s work, even commercially, as long as they credit the author for the original creation.
You will be asked to give a recommendation. The Editor will take into account your recommendation along with those provided by any other reviewers. Your recommendation should be either:
- Accept
- Amendments required before acceptance
- Unsatisfactory revision
Make sure you explain the recommendation you have made in your report. You may see fewer recommendation options if you are reviewing a revised manuscript.
The manuscript must be complete before we can commence work on your book. This includes all text, figure and multimedia files, any auxiliary material and the permissions details. Please speak to your commissioning editor to confirm how your final manuscript will be submitted.
Please follow our Submission Checklist to ensure complete submission of manuscript and associated files that will allow timely production and subsequent publication of your book.
Submission checklist
-
Text
-
- Have you included all contact information for yourself and any contributors? Note that contact information includes street address, email address, telephone number and current affiliation.
- Have you included all necessary front matter material, including
- Title page, with full title, subtitle and author names and affiliations as you wish them to appear on the book
- Preface (if included)
- Table of contents, full
- Author or editor biographies, including photographs
- List of contributors (if an edited collection)
- Dedication (if included)
- Acknowledgements (if included)
- Other e.g. foreword etc (if included)
- Have you supplied an abstract for each chapter?
- Have you provided one source file per chapter that includes all text, tables, references and figure captions? Suitable file formats include MS Word or LaTeX.
- Are the references included at the chapter level, and not as one list at the end of the book?
- Are the chapter files named correctly and consistently, for example ch01.docx?
- Have you included PDF version of the manuscript (both text and art), with all fonts included?
- Is there a reference call within the text for every figure and table?
- Is there a figure number and caption for every figure?
- Is there a number and caption for every table?
-
Artwork
-
- Is each and every figure in the chapter saved as its own separate file?
- Have you saved and named these figure files according to figure number?
- Are the illustrations saved at the correct resolution and size?
- Are the figures saved in the correct format? (We prefer EPS, PDF, WMF, TIFF, GIF, JPEG or BMP.)
- Are any video clips or animated figures saved in an acceptable file format? (We prefer MPEG, QuickTime, Windows AVI or Animated GIF.)
- Are any video clips or animated figures saved at at a suitable resolution and size?
- Have you included a representative frame from your movie or animation that included in the manuscript as a figure?
-
Permissions
-
- Have you completed a Permissions Clearance Form, and included it with the manuscript?
- Have you sought and been granted the appropriate permission to use any material owned by a third party?
- Have you included copies of these permissions?
- Have you appropriately cited any material that is not original?
-
Other
-
- Have you returned your Marketing Questionnaire?
- Have you created, or will you be creating a video abstract for your book?
When reviewing for an IOP journal, you will typically be asked to score the article on a number of different aspects. Individual journal guidelines may vary, so do check the journal-specific guidance here for more information. You will usually be asked to give a rating ranging from ‘Very Low’ to ‘Very High’. The aspects you may be asked to comment on include:
-
Originality:
-
a measure of the novelty of the ideas and techniques reported in the manuscript compared to the existing literature. Articles presenting little or no new ideas or techniques should be given a low rating. Ideas or techniques that are not new but are approached in an original way should be given a medium rating. Completely original ideas, approaches to problems or experimental techniques should be given a high rating.
-
Scientific rigour:
-
a measure of how well the experiment has been carried out; whether all necessary details of the method and results are presented in a way that they can be reproduced; and whether the results have been appropriately analysed and discussed. (This includes the testability of any theoretical predictions or modelling.)
-
Significance:
-
a measure of the likely impact of the results presented within the article’s field. If the article presents trivial or incremental results, it should be given a low rating. Articles that do not advance the field significantly but have archival value should be given a medium rating. Articles that provide significant new insight or make an important advance in the field should be given a high rating.
-
Clarity:
-
a measure of the quality of writing within the article and how well the authors have conveyed the information. Articles written in very poor or broken English, that are very difficult to follow or completely unintelligible should be given a low rating. Articles that are understandable, but would still need significant language editing should be given a medium rating. Articles that are mostly clear and complete and would only require minimal editing should be given a high rating.
Hybrid open access refers to a publishing model in which subscription-based journals allow authors to make individual articles gold open access immediately on payment of an article publication charge.
Green open access refers to the self-archiving of an article in a publicly-accessible institutional or subject repository (usually after an embargo period). Further information on IOP Publishing’s green open access policy.
We all have implicit biases based on our background and experiences. They can cause us to take shortcuts in decision making which can serve us well and save us time, but often they are wrong and end in unfair assessments.
During the peer review process the following biases can influence how you assess a paper and what conclusion you come to:
- Gender bias
- Bias for or against authors from a geographical area
- Language bias, if a paper is translated poorly
- Bias for or against authors from specific institutions
- Bias against researchers at the beginning of their research career
We can all address our implicit biases through self-awareness. You can minimise the influence of your implicit biases during the peer review process:
- Be aware that you have implicit biases that may affect your decision making
- Treat the paper as if you did not know the authors’ names and institutions
- Focus on facts rather than feelings
- Slow down your decision making
- Consider and reconsider the reasons for your conclusions.
