Living Reviews in Solar Physics publishes high quality topical reviews in the realm of solar physics and related fields. We would like to see the best possible review articles published and we gratefully appreciate the vital role referees play in ensuring and increasing the quality of articles.
As articles are solicited by LRR board members, the main purpose of the reviewing should be to improve them. We believe that in most cases an unsatisfactory review can be improved based on the referees’ feedback.
- Does the title reflect the contents?
- Is the abstract sufficiently informative?
- The review articles are intended for physicists at or above the graduate-student level, who are not necessarily working in the author’s area of specialization. Is the article written in a language and style which makes it accessible for the target audience? Is the paper logically structured?
- Are interpretations and conclusions sound? Are there any ambiguities or possible sources for misunderstandings?
- Is the article balanced, exhaustive and up-to-date in its coverage? Is the review biased? Could that be tempered, and how?
- Do the references represent the relevant literature on the subject? Are any substantial references missing?
- Is the English adequate for a multinational readership from the various fields of solar physics?
- You might suggest any additional material, e.g. images, movies, or other electronice resources on the web, that would add to the article’s value.
Please state explicitly whether you recommend to publish the article as it is or only subject to changes. You might consider some changes essential, and some desirable but not crucial. You may also suggest changes or extensions for a future update, which all our authors have committed themselves to provide at regular intervals.
Usually Living Reviews commissions reports from two independent referees. We ask them to provide us with their report within four weeks of receiving the article manuscript.
We send these reports to the author(s). In general the referees remain anonymous to the author(s), but a referee is free to disclose his or her identity to the author(s) and communicate directly (you must still send us your report).
After the author(s) resubmitted, we will get back to you and provide you with the comments the author(s) have made on your suggestions. We will ask you whether you are satisfied with the changes made and recommend publishing the review article.
In case of persistent disagreement between author(s) and referee, the editorial board of Living Reviews in Solar Physics will intervene. An additional referee report might be commissioned. The final decision about publishing a review article rests with the editor-in-chief.