Information for Reviewers
As a reviewer, you play a crucial role in upholding the integrity of science by ensuring that published research is valid, rigorous, and credible. Your thorough and insightful reviews not only help authors improve their papers but also uphold the high standards of Physical Review and contribute directly to the advancement of your field and the broader academic community.
This page provides resources to new and experienced reviewers.
To help you prepare your review, you may request free access to APS articles while your referral is active. Write to help@aps.org.
Why Review?
When you contribute to peer review, you actively advance science while gaining valuable experience and insights. Reviewing provides opportunities to:
- Uphold the integrity of science
- Give back to the research community
- Play a key role in upholding editorial criteria
- Stay abreast of current trends
- Sharpen critical thinking and writing skills
Become a Reviewer
Are you interested in reviewing for Physical Review? Learn the criteria and find out how to volunteer.
A reviewer should possess these attributes:
- A publishing record establishing expertise in a specific research field
- The ability to evaluate a research paper in that field according to the journal’s requirements
- The ability to provide constructive and objective feedback
- The ability to complete the review in a timely manner
- A commitment to adhering to ethical guidelines
- An appetite for scientific discourse and intellectual debate
A specific educational background isn’t required to review if you have the expertise and track record. However, most reviewers have completed their PhD.
Reviewer Training Materials
Are you new to reviewing or do you need a refresher? Find out about our training modules and opportunities to learn from editors.
On-demand training modules
APS provides training modules for new reviewers when they have been invited into our reviewer database. Researchers who complete the training modules receive a certificate, are recognized in our editorial management system, and are eligible to participate in hands-on peer review. Write to help@aps.org.
On-site reviewer tutorials
Editors regularly run tutorials at APS meetings and other conferences. You may also invite editors to give a tutorial at your home institution, either in person or virtually. Write to help@aps.org.
Engaging with Artificial Intelligence for Reviewers, Authors, and Editors
Confused about AI and the peer review process? Enjoy our on-demand webinar where Daniel Ucko, Head of Ethics and Research Integrity, APS, Laura Feetham-Walker, Reviewer Engagement Manager, IOP Publishing, and Brian Solis, Senior Journal Manager, AIP Publishing sit down with Randie Fourneir, APS, and discuss the role of AI in peer review.
Guidelines and Resources for Reviewers
This section provides a practical guide to accessing the reviewer portal, accepting or declining a review request, and preparing your report.
Access the Reviewer Portal and Your Profile
To access current and previous referrals, or to update your expertise, visit the APS Referee Server. See APS Referee Frequently Asked Questions for guidance on using the server.
Reviewer Request
The initial request to review arrives by email and may contain several parts:
- A link that takes you to the manuscript.
- The article abstract.
- Links that allow you to accept or decline a review. The “accept” link allows you to set a different due date if you cannot meet the default.
- Correspondence from previous rounds of review, such as other reports, the author rebuttal letter, and an author-marked manuscript.
- Any special instructions from the editors.
Timeframe for Writing a Report
Most Physical Review journals request reviews of original research articles within 2–3 weeks. The timeframe for special content such as Perspectives and Reviews may vary. If you need extra time, please consult the editors.
Suggesting Alternative Reviewers
If you are unable to provide a review, please recommend other experts.
You can help editors ensure the breadth and diversity of the reviewer pool by suggesting qualified experts who may be lesser known, early career, or from underrepresented groups.
Joint Reports
You’re welcome to invite a colleague to review with you—either for additional expertise or to mentor another researcher (see below). Please notify the editor and ensure that you and your co-reviewer follow the same expectations.
Anatomy of a Reviewer Report
You should assess multiple aspects of the article, including significance and interest to the community. You will be asked to fill in four sections via the APS Referee Server:
- Assessment — pre-set checkboxes for succinct ratings.
- Report — main text intended for editors and authors.
- Recommendation — pre-set checkboxes for acceptance, revision, or rejection, as well as whether you want to see a resubmission.
- Comments for the Editors — any comments to be privately communicated to the editors.
Although you can upload your own pre-formatted reports, using the above sections facilitates the peer review process.
See these guidelines for Structuring Your Report for more information.
Data Availability
You may comment on whether and how data are shared. Note that authors are ultimately responsible for how they share their data, and they may not be able to finalize their data availability statements until the paper is accepted. See Policy on Data Availability.
Supplemental Material
You should assess whether the Supplemental Material is relevant to the main text and scientifically sound and indicate whether any of it should be included in the main text. See Policy on Supplemental Material.
Reminders and Prompts
APS sends you regular reminders to confirm your availability to review. The editor will close their request if they don’t hear from you. Similarly, APS reminds you to provide a report at the promised deadline, and the editor will close the referral if they don’t receive a report.
Expectations of Reviewers
Respond Promptly to Review Requests
Decline the review request promptly if you’re unable to review or don’t have the right expertise. If you are able to review, please provide the review within the stated timeframe to avoid delays for the author.
Address Editorial Queries
Editors may query reviewers to ask them to expand upon their reasoning for their recommendations or to comment on the reports of other reviewers.
Be a Mentor
We encourage you to collaborate with a student or post-doctoral researcher in a mentoring role. This type of joint report is a great pathway for APS to learn about new reviewers. Please notify the editor, ensure your mentee follows the same expectations as you, and direct them to our reviewer guidelines.
Review Your Profile and Expertise
Help keep our database current by reviewing and updating your contact information and research interests through our Referee Server.
Use Caution with AI Tools
Do not use AI-detection tools or other integrity-checking software, as these can inadvertently breach confidentiality. See Appropriate Use of AI Tools for authors and reviewers.
Ethical Use of Materials
Reviewers must abide by the journals’ guidelines for appropriate use of confidential information and should never intentionally delay a manuscript.
Ethical Recommendations
Reviewers should not make recommendations purely for their own gain, such as requesting unwarranted citations to their publications.
Anonymity
Unless otherwise noted, a reviewer’s identity is only visible to the editors. If you need or want to disclose your identity, discuss this option with the editor. All communication with authors should go through the editorial office, which can relay questions or concerns to the authors.
Research Integrity and Ethics
Report any concerns to the journal as soon as possible. You don’t need to complete the review before reporting potential issues.
Disclose Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest (COIs), including personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious. If you’re unsure about a potential conflict, contact the editors promptly for guidance. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include if you:
- Work at the same institution as any of the authors
- Have been a mentor, mentee, close collaborator, or joint grant holder with any of the authors in the past three years
- Have a manuscript in preparation or under review that is very similar to the one being considered
COPE ethical guidelines — For more information on the proper conduct of referees, please see the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Reviewer Recognition
The Physical Review journals celebrate reviewers who go above and beyond in supporting scientific quality. These awards honor both long-term dedication and recent exceptional contributions to the peer review process.
Outstanding Referees
This portfolio-wide award recognizes reviewers who have, during the course of their careers, provided exceptionally helpful, timely, and high-quality reports for the APS journals. See all awardees for Outstanding Referees.
Reviewer Excellence Awards
These journal-specific awards express appreciation for reviewers who have recently made exceptional contributions that are instrumental to peer review at a specific Physical Review journal. See all Reviewer Excellence Awardees.
Letters of Support
APS provides letters that document and highlight reviewer contributions to our journals to help support immigration/job/academic applications. To request a letter, please contact APS Help.