Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to www.scribd.com

Scribd
Upload
8 views2 pages

Reviewer-Report-Guide-C

The IOP Publishing Reviewer Report Guide provides a structured approach for reviewers to evaluate submitted articles based on criteria such as scope, originality, scientific rigor, significance, writing quality, length, figures and tables, title, abstract, conclusion, references, and recommendations. Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive feedback and maintain professionalism in their comments. The guide emphasizes the importance of effective peer review for the journal's success and expresses gratitude for the reviewers' contributions.

Uploaded by

Jaafer
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
8 views2 pages

Reviewer-Report-Guide-C

The IOP Publishing Reviewer Report Guide provides a structured approach for reviewers to evaluate submitted articles based on criteria such as scope, originality, scientific rigor, significance, writing quality, length, figures and tables, title, abstract, conclusion, references, and recommendations. Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive feedback and maintain professionalism in their comments. The guide emphasizes the importance of effective peer review for the journal's success and expresses gratitude for the reviewers' contributions.

Uploaded by

Jaafer
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

IOP Publishing

Reviewer Report Guide (C)


Here aresome
Here are someuseful
useful
tipstips to help
to help structure
structure youryour reviewer
reviewer reportreport.
or an article that
you wish to submit:
1. Scope
Does the article make significant, original and correct contributions to one or more topics within the scope of
the journal?

2. Originality
Is the work novel, e.g. does it fill a gap in the literature by describing a new method, or by answering an important
unresolved question or reporting significant new results? Does it solve a current problem?

3. Scientific rigour
Is this article scientifically rigorous, accurate and correct? Is the method sound and clearly explained? Is sufficient
information provided for it to be replicated?

4. Significance
What impact do you think this article will have on the field? How timely is this article?
!
5. Writing
AA Is the article well written and the work clearly communicated? Reviewers are not expected to correct spelling,
grammar or use-of-English mistakes. However, if the paper is written so poorly that you cannot clearly understand
what the authors mean, or there are so many errors that reading the paper becomes very difficult, then that should
be reported back to the journal.

6. Length
Can the article be shortened without detriment to the content? Are the text and any mathematics brief but still
clear? If you recommend shortening, please suggest what could be omitted.

7. Figures and tables


Are diagrams and tables clear and essential, and captions informative?

8. Title
Does the title clearly and concisely convey the topic of the article? Can you suggest a better title?
9. Abstract
Does the abstract contain the essential information about the article? Is it complete by itself and suitable for direct
inclusion in an abstracting service?

10. Conclusion
Does the conclusion summarise what has been learned and why it is interesting and useful? Is it supported by the
results? Does it satisfy the purpose of the manuscript as stated in the introduction?

11. References
Has the author referred to the most recent and most appropriate work? If not, please provide examples of those
references. Do the references include all the necessary information? Do the references show a bias towards the
author’s own work?

12. Recommendation
If you think the work could be published after revision, which areas require improvement to bring the article
up to the required quality standards? If you think the work should be rejected, why have you made this
recommendation?

Please remember that all your comments as a reviewer should be polite, professional and constructive.

We would like to thank all reviewers for the work they continue to do for us. Effective peer review is essential to the success of the
journal and we greatly appreciate the time and effort that reviewers give up on behalf of the journal. We hope that we can continue
this valued collaboration into the future.

For further guidance on reviewing, please visit publishing support at


publishingsupport.iopscience.org

You might also like