Referees' instructions

Deadlines

We ask that referees' reports be completed and returned to the Editor by email within one month.

Format

Each paper submitted to the AJP gets a login number. This is shown in the filename. Reports should be sent as a .rtf, .doc or .docx attachment with that number also appearing in the filename, and headed: 'Confidential Report on [number and title of paper]'. Reports must be anonymous; those who write in Word should use the Save As facility and choose the Option 'Remove personal information from this file on save'. We do earnestly plead with referees not to write their reports in the body of an email message, since these often emerge with invisible code which must be removed before they can be used for feedback to authors.

Content

A referee is asked to indicate clearly whether acceptance, conditional acceptance, rejection, or revision-and-resubmission is recommended. If r-&-r is the recommendation, indication should be provided of willingness (or lack of it) to read a revised version of the paper; in the former case, a copy of the manuscript should be retained. (A verdict of r-&-r is not available when the paper has already been resubmitted; resubmitted papers contain the letters 'RR' in the login number.) In the case of a paper longer than 8000 words, referees should bear in mind the editorial policy that the acceptance bar rises with increasing length; suggestions about how a paper could profitably be shortened are always very useful. It greatly assists the Editor in coming to a decision if referees provide sufficient commentary so that the basis of their judgement, rather than just the verdict itself, is clear. This also is vital information for authors, who will have a clearer idea of how their arguments must be improved in order to be of a publishable standard.

Referees should bear in mind that Journal policy is to make available as much of their reports as possible to the author(s). They should accordingly adopt a judicious tone in their assessment, while not forgetting that, if a paper is of very poor quality the report must indicate this.

Criteria

A paper accepted for publication in the AJP should of course display in a high degree the usual academic virtues -- argument, organization, originality, scholarship, significance and so on -- and referees are expected to comment on these matters. But it would be greatly appreciated if referees also asked themselves these sorts of questions about a submission: Is it enjoyable, even exciting, to read? Does it display flair, or elegance, or vivacity in the writing? Is it written in such a way that it might interest someone who does not already have detailed knowledge of its subject matter? It hardly needs saying that we would like referees to assess the paper, as far as possible, with regard to the quality of its argumentation, rather than in terms of the compatibility of its conclusions with their own positions and philosophical commitments.