SUGGESTIONS FOR REFEREES

(February 1998)

Table of Contents

• Mission
• General considerations
• Report submission
• Considerations in writing a report
• Review summary

Physical Review Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams (PRST-AB) aims to publish papers that contain advances in the science and technology of accelerators and beams. The journal is completely electronic with electronic submission, refereeing, publication, and with the archival record being an online journal.

General considerations

When asked to review a manuscript for PRSTAB, referees should feel free to show it to knowledgeable colleagues and to consult them about their review. However, referees are asked not to distribute copies of the manuscript or use results contained in it without permission from the authors. If you are unable to review the paper within three weeks, please contact the editorial office via email. (If you cannot review the paper, please suggest alternative referees or ask a colleague to review the paper and notify the editorial office via email.) In some cases, referees may wish to send additional remarks solely for the editor (e.g., suggestions for alternative referees); such remarks should be clearly identified and separate from the report. Thank you for your help, it is very much appreciated.

Report submission

Please submit your report only via the Web response form to facilitate efficient handling. Copies of the manuscript should not be returned as we cannot handle handwritten or electronically embedded annotations. (Please do not send duplicates of your report via email, fax, or conventional mail unless so instructed.)

On the form, you will be asked to check some boxes to summarize your review, and then to fill in your report. You will also have an opportunity to fill in separately remarks intended for the editors only (not for transmission to the authors).

Considerations in writing a referee report

• Does the paper contain sufficient new science and technology to warrant publication in PRST-AB?
• Is the paper scientifically sound and not misleading? Criticisms based on published or unpublished work should be referenced. If you advise the editors that the paper is unacceptable for scientific reasons, it will not be published without further review.
• Does the paper report a significant advance over previously published work? If a substantial number of its results appeared previously, please cite references.
• Are there appropriate and adequate references to related work?
• Is the paper well organized and written clearly and correctly? If you find it necessary to suggest changes in the manuscript for the benefit of the author, please identify the section and paragraph of the change and include suggestions for the changes in your report.
• Are the figures, tables, movies, and computer code and scripts (if any) clear and with suitable captions and/or descriptions in the text? Are they all useful? Is there unnecessary duplication? The archival version of the manuscript will be the electronic file, and you should consider possible computer specific enhancements as an integral part of the manuscript. Readers will, at times, print manuscripts, and these printed versions will not have the enhancements. Is the description of any computer specific enhancement reasonably clear for a reader of a printed version?
• Is the paper of suitable length, with no parts too brief or too long? If not, please suggest specific omissions or parts that should be expanded. Is some of the material (e.g., long tables) best suited for an appendix?
• Are the title and abstract informative, concise, and clear?

Review summary

In the Review Summary on the Referee Response Form, you will be asked to respond to the following:

Quality of Research: ( ) Excellent ( ) Good ( ) Average ( ) Marginal ( ) Poor
Quality of Presentation: ( ) Excellent ( ) Good ( ) Average ( ) Marginal ( ) Poor

Recommendations:
( ) Publish without change (please give reasons in the report).
( ) Publish after authors have considered the optional revisions mentioned in the report.
( ) Publish after authors have made revisions mentioned in the report. (I do not need to see the manuscript again.)
( ) Revisions are necessary. Return to me on resubmittal.
( ) Revisions are necessary. On Resubmittal, send to _____________ .
( ) Manuscript is more appropriate for another journal, _____________ .
( ) Do not publish; see report.
( ) Other; see report.