Referee resources AJP Fizika

Below are the AJP Fizika reviewing guidelines and shortcuts to the online submission options reports. For information on the topical scope, categories of contributions, editorial and ethical conduct policy of please refer to the Editorial information page.
RRL - Rapid Research Letters has separate
RR - Referee resources.
More general resources for reviewers can be found:
General referee guidelines
Criteria for manuscript evaluation
Article types and criteria for proceedings
Information on Feature and Review Articles
Submit a report
Become a referee

General referee guidelines

Thank you for acting as a referee for AJP Physics. Your support for our journal and the authors and readers it serves is deeply appreciated.

We do our best to select referees who are experts in the respective field and who do not have a conflict of interest with the case. However, should you have been asked in spite of circumstances that prevent you from giving an informed, objective recommendation, please tell us by replying to the request message.

Suggestions for alternative reviewers are very welcome, but reviewers should not approach their colleagues directly, as manuscripts under review are confidential.

The identity of reviewers is strictly confidential.

The referee reports are designated to be forwarded to the authors (except for parts marked for exclusive information of the editor). Reviewers should strive to write clearly, especially for authors for whom English is not their first language; be objective, not subjective; be constructive, not destructive; and treat the author’s manuscript and work as they would like their own to be treated. Authors should use the reports to improve their manuscripts, if feasible.

We may ask you to re-review a manuscript where the authors have responded to criticism raised in the initial reports. Please note that no new issues should be added to the discussion at this stage, unless they are prompted by the changes or other previously unavailable information. If a paper contains more errors than you can list, please mention this in your initial report.

Corrections of the English are welcome, but not required. Please mention in your report when a manuscript needs heavy language editing.

Layout issues will be resolved during typesetting for accepted articles in pss (a)/(b)/(RRL). In pss (c) responsibility for a fully-formatted, production-ready manuscript lies with the authors (simplified typesetting service by publisher).

If you cannot access articles published in pss or other Wiley journals that are necessary to evaluate the manuscript under review, the Editorial Office will provide copies.

Criteria for manuscript evaluation

We ask you to rate the overall importance and presentation of the work (tick scales in the report form), and to give a recommendation regarding publication by choosing from the following options in the online submission system:

Accept: The paper can be published as is.
Minor amendments: Minor issues such as changes of the presentation and clarifications or shortenings of the text should be applied before publication.
Major revision: The paper needs to be thoroughly rewritten and its content must be revised to overcome weaknesses of the data, its presentation, analysis and interpretation.
Reject: The major findings are not supported by the results, or do not present sufficient and original science in the field of solid state physics to be of interest for readership.

In addition, it is essential that you supply comments in plain text to provide arguments for your choice. Ideally, your report would start with a summary of the manuscript's content. Please put the findings into the current scientific context and indicate their overall significance for the field. You should also state your view on the overall quality of the work with its strength and weaknesses and point out any major flaws.
Here are more detailed questions to ask when evaluating the content and presentation of a manuscript:

Content/scientific merit

Is the work scientifically sound and correct, or are there major flaws in the method, results, analysis, or interpretation?

Is the content of topical interest for a readership from the international solid state physics community? Would it be more appropriate for a regional or more specialised journal, or for journals focussing on materials science, engineering or chemistry?

Does the paper contain sufficient new information? Has similar work already been published by the authors or other groups, and if yes, is it cited? Papers should avoid repetition and serial publication (e.g. investigation of slightly varying materials by the same techniques with similar results).

Is the work set into the current scientific context by adequate citation? Are the references up to date and widely available, reflect the state of knowledge in the appropriate field, and balance self-citation with other author's work? Is citation limited or excessive?

Does the manuscript discuss or develop solid state physics concepts and models, or is it restricted to the description of materials preparation, experimental data or numerical results?

Are there any concerns regarding ethical conduct in scientific publishing (see Editorial information page for details on our ethical policy)?


​ All materials associated with the review process are confidential, including the manuscript, Supplemental Material, author-provided material, referee reports, and other correspondence. These materials must remain confidential when you consult with colleagues or invite them to write a joint report. We ask that you include the names and contact information of any olleagues who help in writing the report. When you are reviewing a manuscript, please do not initiate discussions with the author(s); instead, please contact the editors with your inquiry.
It is vitally important for reviewers to disclose any conflicts of interest to the editors. Please let them know if you have a direct competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with an author that could preclude your objective evaluation of the manuscript. It is unethical for you to use the content of a manuscript sent to you for review for your own scientific purposes.

Reviewing the manuscript and writing the report

The following guidelines are an aid to help when reviewing the manuscript. Read the referral letter carefully; there may be editor comments and questions, and/or reference material and previous correspondence sent with the referral. When writing your report, use clear, simple wording and avoid overly negative or polemical comments.
We suggest dividing your review into three parts: (I) Comments intended for both the author(s) and the editors; (II) Recommendation; (III) Comments to the editors only.

Comments intended for both the authors(s) and the editors:

Briefly summarize the manuscript. The summary could include a statement on the key results and how they add to the field.
Assess the originality and significance of the results.
Assess the technical quality and scientific rigor of the manuscript.
   Is the work well executed and technically correct?
   Are the models or approximations used sufficiently justified?
   Are the main conclusions or claims well supported?
   Is the section for which this manuscript is being considered (Regular Article, Rapid Communication, or Comment) the right venue for this work?
   Be aware that some sections have length limits.
   If submitted as a Rapid Communication, does the work’s quality and importance justify the special handling associated with the section?

Assess the manuscript’s presentation.
   Are the title and abstract informative, concise, and clear?
   Is the manuscript well organized and clearly written?
   Is the description of the technical content sufficiently comprehensive?
   Are the references to the literature appropriate and adequate?
      Does the content of the manuscript justify its length? Please be specific as to how and where the manuscript could be expanded or shortened.
Are the figures and tables clear, useful, and suitably summarized in the captions? Is there duplication from previous publications?
Assess the content and quality of the Supplemental Material. Is the information included supplemental or essential for understanding the manuscript? Should any of it be included in the main text?


Your report should include a recommendation to accept, revise and reconsider, or reject the manuscript. Please provide reasons for your recommendation. ​

Comments intended for the editors only:

When submitting your report, you will be presented with a table of checkboxes where you can summarize your overall view of the manuscript for the editors. Here you can indicate your recommendation on accepting or rejecting the manuscript, and, if appropriate, suggest that the paper be transferred to another ournal. This section is where you may include confidential remarks for the editor. These comments may include your thoughts on why the paper is right or wrong for the particular journal, reasons behind your recommendation, or other information you feel would be useful.

Technical presentation

​Is the manuscript clearly organized? Structuring with subheadings is the rule, but not mandatory for short papers.
Are there places where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous?
Do the authors maintain a reasonable relation between length and content? Articles should be long enough to present all the necessary information that cannot be referenced in other literature, but no longer than that. The authors may submit supplementary material for online-only publication along with their manuscript.
Are there factual, numerical, or unit errors?
Is the title comprehensive but brief?
Does the abstract comprise the problem, the method, and the essential results in approximately ten lines of text?
Does the introduction motivate and state the aims of the work, and set it into the current state of the art (including adequate citations)?
Equations should correspond to the subject under study both in number and quality (no textbook level, no trivial steps). Is it possible to follow derivations? Are the symbols explained in the text (no symbol definition table) and the limits of validity given? Are the figures, tables, and schemes appropriate, of sufficient quality, and properly labelled?
Do the conclusions focus on the new findings and achieved progress, and not repeat the abstract?

Comments in AJP Fizika