Scientific Journal Review Form

This page provides an example of a typical journal review form. The editors of virtually all scientific journals routinely send forms like this to experts in the corresponding scientific field to review, anonymously, the merits of each paper submitted for publication. Only a small fraction of the papers survive the scrutiny and get published, often after several cycles of refinement and review.

              REVIEW FORM

Author:          . . . . . . . . . .
Title of Paper:  . . . . . . . . . .

Decision  (please return within 3 weeks)
 [ ] Accept as is
 [ ] Accept with minor revisions
 [ ] Accept with major revisions (re-review)
 [ ] Reject but encourage re-submission after the work is more developed
 [ ] Reject

Rate the following items (on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best)

 - How important is the work reported?  Does it attack an
     important/difficult problem (as opposed to a peripheral/simple one)?
 - Does the approach offered advance the state of the art?
 - Does it involve or synthesize ideas, methods, approaches from multiple
 - Does it have interesting implications for multiple disciplines?

 - Is this a new issue?  Is this a novel approach to an issue?
 - Is this a novel combination of familiar ideas/techniques/methods/approaches?
 - Does the paper point out differences from related research?
 - Does the paper properly situate itself with respect to previous work?

 - Is the paper technically sound?  How are its claims backed up?
 - Does it carefully evaluate the strengths and limitations of its contribution?

 - Is the paper clearly written?  Does it motivate the research?  Does it
     describe clearly the methods employed (e.g., experimental procedures,
     algorithms, analytical tools), if any?
 - Are the results, if any, described and evaluated thoroughly?
 - Is the paper organized in a sensible and logical fashion?

 - Is the paper closely related to the theme of the journal (broadly conceived)?
 - Is the content interesting enough to a broad audience?
 - Is the paper readable in a multi-disciplinary context?

Explanations for the above ratings and other general comments on major
issues (on a separate sheet)

Comments on the minor details of the article (optional; on a separate sheet)

Please send completed form to the action editor who contacted you.

[ Back to Sagan's excerpt ]

Check the validity of this page's HTML Page maintained by Alex Petrov
Created 2000-04-08, last updated 2005-04-13.