Reviewer Guidelines

Vertex Physics operates a double-anonymized peer review by default (authors and reviewers blinded) with optional transparency after decision (authors/reviewers may opt to disclose identities; with consent, reports may be published). We aim for fair, rigorous, and timely evaluations.

  • Turnaround: initial decision targeted in ~3 weeks
  • Confidentiality: manuscripts and reviews are confidential
  • Conflicts: declare any potential COI before accepting
  • Co-review: permitted only with prior editor approval and full disclosure

 

Need the full rules? See Policies & Process →

Model

Default double-anonymized peer review. Selected article types (e.g., Interviews, Editorials) are handled editorially; some may be single-blind or not externally refereed.

Before you accept. Confirm:

  • Expertise fit (you can assess core claims/methods)
  • Availability (can return a report within 2–3 weeks)
  • Conflicts of interest (examples below)
  • Independence (no recent collaborations/shared grants)

Confidentiality & co-review

  • Do not share the manuscript.
  • Mentored co-review is allowed only with prior editor approval; disclose the co-reviewer’s name and role in confidential notes to the editor.
  • Do not upload confidential content to external services (including public AI tools, grammar checkers, or cloud viewers) without permission.

Anonymity & editing of reports

  • Your identity is not shared with authors unless you choose to sign your report after decision.
  • Editors may edit reports to remove identifying or inappropriate content while preserving scientific substance.

Conflicts of interest (examples)

Recent co-authorship or collaboration; shared funding; same department or close institutional ties; advisor/advisee relationships; direct competition; financial interests. When in doubt—disclose.

Timing & extensions

Standard review window: 2–3 weeks. If you need more time, notify the editors early; short extensions are usually possible.

Access to literature

If you cannot access a key reference or dataset, contact the editors for assistance rather than proceeding without verification.

Escalation

Use the "Confidential notes to editor" to flag ethics concerns (plagiarism, image/data manipulation, undisclosed reuse), serious methodology/statistics issues, or suspected breaches of anonymity.

 

Ready to write? See How to Write a Review →

Provide a clear, evidence-based assessment that helps editors decide and helps authors improve the work.

Recommended Structure

  1. Summary (2–5 sentences) — What the paper claims and why it matters.
  2. Major comments — Validity, novelty, sufficiency of evidence, key methods/statistics, data availability/reproducibility, interpretation.
  3. Minor comments — Clarity, figures/tables, references, small methodological clarifications, English/structure.
  4. Confidential notes to editor — COI disclosures, ethics flags, frank recommendation with rationale.

Core Evaluation Dimensions

  • Originality & significance — Substantive advance beyond prior art; not merely incremental.
  • Methodological rigor — Appropriate design/controls/derivations; stats where relevant; assumptions clear.
  • Data integrity & reproducibility — Results consistent; analyses transparent; Data Availability Statement sufficient; code/data accessible as policy requires or restrictions justified.
  • Interpretation & discussion — Conclusions supported; limitations acknowledged; literature context accurate and balanced.
  • Presentation quality — Logical structure; figures readable and compliant; references complete and fair; English clear.
  • Fit to scope — Relevance to Vertex Physics readership.

Tone & conduct

  • Be specific, constructive, and professional.
  • Cite line/figure numbers; propose concrete remedies.
  • Avoid personal remarks or citation-padding (including to your own work unless essential).

What not to do

  • Do not attempt to identify authors; do not contact authors directly.
  • Do not request citation of irrelevant work.
  • Do not rely on AI to generate your review.

 

Ready to submit? See How to Submit Your Report →

Login & dashboard. Use the secure link from your invitation; pending tasks are listed on your dashboard.

Download & tools. Download manuscript/SI; optional in-platform PDF annotation if available.

Report form fields:

  • Structured report (paste or upload)
  • Confidential notes to editor
  • Ratings (novelty, rigor, clarity, ethics, overall)
  • Decision recommendation (Accept / Minor Rev / Major Rev / Reject)
  • Optional annotated files

Revising a submitted report. Use “Revise/Replace” in the portal or email the editor (include manuscript ID).

Messaging the editors. Use the portal messaging or email editorial@vertexphysics.com for deadline changes, policy clarifications, or ethics flags.

Browser & file tips. Use a modern browser; upload vector graphics/PDF for annotated figures; remove metadata that might reveal identity.

 

Type-Specific Evaluation Criteria  →

Research Articles

  • Expect: Major conceptual/experimental advance; robust methods; full data support; clear DA statement.
  • Scrutinize: Controls; statistical power; uncertainty treatment; appropriateness of comparisons.
  • Red flags: Claims outpace evidence; missing key controls; irreproducible analysis.

Letters

  • Expect: Concise, high-impact findings of broad interest.
  • Scrutinize: Decisiveness of evidence within short format.
  • Red flags: Preliminary signals needing a full paper to substantiate.

Review Articles

  • Expect: Authoritative, balanced synthesis; critical appraisal; field-shaping perspective; comprehensive references.
  • Red flags: Selective citation; promotional tone; missing seminal work.

Mini-Review Articles

  • Expect: Focused overview of an emerging area; clarity for non-specialists; key open questions.
  • Red flags: Too broad; light analysis; limited value beyond existing reviews.

Highlights / Perspectives

  • Highlights: Accurate, accessible context for a notable recent result; correctness paramount.
  • Perspectives: Forward-looking insights; defensible arguments; transparent opinion vs. evidence.

Interviews / Recollections / Editorials 

  • Expect: Accuracy, clarity, relevance; factual verification as needed.

 

Special Cases & Escalation  →

  • Cross-disciplinary submissions. Recommend an additional methods/statistics reviewer where appropriate.
  • Conflicting reviews. Provide explicit, evidence-based reasoning; editors may commission a tie-breaker review.
  • Methods/statistics uncertainty. Request analyses or controls; explain why they’re required for validity.
  • Data/image concerns. Describe issues in confidential notes; do not investigate externally.
  • Replication/negative results. Potentially publishable if the methodology is strong and the result is consequential.
  • Incremental advances. Recommend Reject unless the increment delivers broad utility (e.g., scalability, generality, precision).

 

Ethics & Conflicts of Interest  →

  • Confidentiality. Treat all materials as confidential; no unauthorized sharing.
  • Conflicts of interest. Disclose recent collaborations, shared grants, same institution/department, advisor/advisee ties, direct competition, or financial interests.
  • Co-review. Allowed only with prior editor approval; disclose co-reviewer’s name and contribution to editors.
  • AI tools. AI-generated reviews are not allowed. Limited grammar/style assistance is permissible only if you verify accuracy and disclose use (do not upload confidential content to public tools).
  • Misconduct flags. Use confidential notes to alert editors about plagiarism, text/image/data manipulation, or undisclosed reuse.

See full policies: Peer Review Policy and Publishing Ethics.

 

Recognition & Credit  →

  • Certificates available on request after completed reviews.
  • Annual acknowledgment (opt-in) on the journal website.
  • Reviewer credit via ORCID-linked services (where supported).
  • Invitations to future reviewing/editing opportunities for outstanding referees.

 

Questions and Contact→

Can I decline? Yes; please respond promptly and, if possible, suggest unbiased alternates (with institutional emails).

Need more time? Request an extension before the deadline; short extensions are often granted.

Can I involve a trainee? Only with prior editor approval, and you must disclose the co-reviewer.

May I sign my review? You may choose to sign after decision; default remains anonymous to authors.

What if I suspect misconduct? Describe the concern in confidential notes; do not contact authors or investigate externally.

Access problem to cited literature/data? Contact the editors for assistance.

Can I request citations to my work? Only if directly relevant and proportionate—avoid citation padding.

Browser or platform issues? Use a current browser; contact editorial@vertexphysics.com with the manuscript ID.

 

Becoming a Reviewer

Who we invite. Researchers with a PhD (or equivalent experience), an active publication record, and clear expertise in one or more physics areas.

Express interest. Email editorial@vertexphysics.com with your CV/ORCID and 5-10 keywords describing your expertise in relevant sub-disciplines of physics.