|
General
For every submitted
paper the editor in charge of the editorial procedure can turn to
a referee for an opinion. On the basis of his/her report, the editor
writes the final report and makes the decision on whether papers
are publishable. In reviewing papers referees should tend to the
standards of the JHEP editorial policy.
As soon as a
referee is selected by the editor, the JHEP software automatically
sends a notification via e-mail to the referee and sets up the corresponding
referee web page.
The
referee web page
Referees perform
the reviewing procedure from their personal referee web pages.
From the referee
web page for a particular preprint you can:
- read the
general information on the paper (authors, title, preprint number)
- read the
abstract
- read and
download the paper itself available for downloading in three different
formats (DVI, PS, PDF)
- write and
send your report
- communicate
with the JHEP Executive Office for assistance or further information.
As soon as a
new, relevant event occurs the referee web pages are dynamically
updated. Correspondingly, e-mail notifications are also sent to
you.
The report must
be sent using the appropriate form available in this section and
taking into account the guidelines given in "How to write the
report".
You may occasionally
receive a paper which is not compatible with your field of specialisation.
In this case, please send a notification to the editor and the JHEP
Executive Office.
How
to write the report
To be considered
for publication in JHEP, papers must contain significant new physics,
must be of high quality and scientific interest, must be written
in good, scientific English, and must be on subject matter covered
by the journal.
Please bear
in mind that one of the aims of JHEP is to vet the large number
of preprints and select those papers that truly satisfy the above
requirements.
You can write
your report using the appropriate form on your referee web page.
The following points are important in writing your report:
- Does the
paper contain sufficient new physics?
- Is the paper
scientifically correct?
- Does the
paper represent a significant improvement with respect to previously
published papers on the matter?
- Are there
appropriate and adequate references to related works?
- Is the length
appropriate with no parts too brief or too long?
- Is the paper
written in standard comprehensible English?
Taking into
account the previous issues, you can evaluate the quality of the
contribution using the following scale:
- Excellent
- Good
- Average
- Marginal
- Poor
The report should
indicate quite clearly whether - in your opinion - the paper can
be:
- Published
without any changes
- Published
after the authors have made the revisions mentioned in the report
- Cannot be
published.
On the grounds
of the referee report the editor will take the final decision and
write the report, which will be sent to the authors. Referees will
be automatically informed of the decision. In case of revision,
referees may be asked to review the revised version. The procedure
is the same as in the first round of reviewing. Further rounds of
revision can be asked by the editor before his/her final decision.
|
