Login

Reviewers

General

The Journal of Quantum Science (JQuant) maintains the highest standards of publication and research ethics.

Reviewers play a very important role in the publication process and their work is crucial for the success of the journal. All reviewers are expected to comply with:

🔎 Scope and Aim

🔎 Ethical policy

🔎 Editorial Policy

🔎 COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers 

When accepting an article to review, please ensure that the content of the manuscript is close enough to your area of expertise so that you can provide a prompt and professional review. If this is not the case or you cannot provide a timely review, please decline as soon as possible and if known, suggest names for alternative reviewers.

Guidelines to write your report

Reviewers should declare potentially competing financial issues, personal relationships, or academic interests that could affect impartiality. For example:

  • very similar manuscript to one you have in preparation or under consideration
  • being in a position to exploit the authors’ work (commercially or otherwise)
  • being in other ways prevented from objectively reviewing the manuscript

When uploading their report, reviewers will be requested to declare that they have no Conflicts of Interest or to contact the editor-in-charge if they do.

Reviewers will also be requested to rate the following criteria on a scale that goes from poor to excellent:

  • Soundness of the methodology and arguments
  • Originality and contribution to the existing literature
  • Significance and potential impact
  • Clarity and organization of the manuscript
  • Suitability for the journal’s scope
  • Appropriateness of the manuscript length

They will also be asked to conclude with their recommendation:

  • Accept
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject

Finally, reviewers can write their report in LaTeX. The following guidelines are aligned to the journal standards and expectations for a professional and constructive report.

General suggestions

  • Be clear and concrete when pointing out flaws, criticisms should be substantiated with research or scholarly evidence. Carefully explain your reasoning for your criticism.
  • Use clear simple wording that is respectful. Avoid unnecessary overly negative or hostile comments.
  • Offensive and/or derogatory language is not helpful or appropriate.
  • Be critical but constructive. Focus on improvement with specific recommendations.

Detailed suggestions (especially for early-career reviewers)

  • Start by summarising the main results of the manuscript and identify the key results and the value they add to the field.
  • Evaluate scientific quality, originality and relevance. More in details:
    • Evaluate the significance of the results
    • Evaluate the originality of the results
    • What does the manuscript add to the subject area compared with other published material?
    • Report manuscript strengths. Then state flaws or weaknesses.
    • Has similar work been published already without authors acknowledging it?
  • Evaluate technical quality of the manuscript:
    • Are the methods used appropriate?
    • Is the work technically correct?
    • Are models, methods, approximation etc. sufficiently well described and motivated?
    • Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
  • Evaluate the presentation:
    • Is the manuscript well written? Is the text clear and easy to read, written in standard, comprehensible English? Is the presentation well organised?
    • Is the description of the technical content clear and comprehensive?
    • Is the article complete in all its parts (references, supplementary material etc.)

Use of AI

JQuant forbids the unrestricted use of large language models, AI chatbots like ChatGPT, and AI generative models for writing peer review reports. The two main reasons for this are:

  • Uploading any portion of a manuscript into an external generative AI model could violate the authors’ confidentiality rights, and infringe on data protection rights.
  • Generative AI models are not subject matter experts and cannot take responsibility for the evaluation of scientific work, nor comply with the journal’s ethical standards.

Still, for the purpose of refining, summarising or slightly correcting the text of their report, referees may use AI tools that ensure confidentiality, do not store or share the content, and do not use the material for training AI models, taking in any case full responsibility for its final content.

Revised versions

If you are asked to review a revised manuscript, a list of changes to the article may be included. You should adjudicate the revised manuscript according to the same quality criteria as you did the original version. If the authors have not addressed your concerns satisfactorily make this clear in your report.