Please download HOW TO WRITE A REVIEWER REPORT

The Editorial Board thanks you for agreeing to act as a reviewer for JJAP. The quality of the journal relies on the expertise of reviewers and their reports, and we highly appreciate your time and effort.

It is important that you let us know as soon as possible whether you will be able to review the article by the suggested deadline. If you are unable to accept this task, please inform us immediately so that the review process is not delayed. In this case, it would be very helpful to the editors if you could suggest alternative expert scientists who could review the article.

For the evaluation of the article, a reviewer’s report form is provided by our online reviewing system for you to fill in, which deals with the appropriateness of the presentation and scientific quality of the article. Please provide your evaluation in each section of the form, as explained in the Guideline for Regular Papers below, so that the editor can choose to either approve the publication of the article or return the manuscript to the authors for revision. Guidelines corresponding to different types of papers in regular and special issues of JJAP are summarized below.

Reviewers should objectively judge the quality of the manuscript and refrain from subjective personalized criticism of the authors. The identity of the reviewer is strictly confidential. You are asked not to send the reviewer’s report directly to the authors, nor disclose your identity before the publication of the article.

A reviewer is expected to act promptly for timely publications. Prompt response is appreciated particularly when reviewing articles submitted as Rapid Communications, for which the urgency and timeliness of research is of primary importance.

Special Issues are planned on specific leading topics. Reviewers are requested to note that articles submitted to Special Issues must meet all the usual standards of quality for the journal.

Please read How To Write A Reviewer Report before you start the review.

Guideline for reviewers: Regular Papers

Regular Papers are original papers with comprehensive, detailed descriptions of the research work, presenting fully-developed discussions on the results obtained in respective fields of applied physics. They must provide sufficient and self-contained information to ensure the repeatability of experiments and simulations by readers. There is no limit to the length of the paper.

In your reviewer’s report, please address the following key points:

1. Presentation checklist

1.1 Title: Is the title adequate for the content, informative, concise and clear?
1.2 Abstract: Is it comprehensive by itself? Is the important and essential information of the article included?
1.3 References: Are appropriate and adequate references to related works covered sufficiently in the list? Full papers typically have approximately 30 or more references.
1.4 Structure and length: Is the overall structure of the article well organized and well balanced? Is the article written in the minimum length necessary for all relevant information?
1.5 Logic: Is the article written clearly and correctly? Does it have logical consistency?
1.6 Figures and tables: Are they essential and clearly presented?
1.7 English: Is the English language used in the article readable and good enough to convey scientific meaning correctly?

2. Scientific quality rating

2.1 Novelty and originality: Is the article novel and original? Does the article contain material that is new or significantly adds to knowledge already published?
2.2 Importance and impact: Do the presented results have significant importance and impact to the advancement in the respective field of research? Is this article likely to be cited in the future?
2.3 Relevance to applied physics: Is the article scientifically sound and not misleading? Does it provide sufficient in-depth discussion of the application of a physical principle or the understanding of physics in view of its application?
2.4 Completeness of presentation: Is the presentation complete for a scientific article? Please rate the article by considering the evaluation given in 1.

3. Overall rating and recommendation

3.1 Summary of reviewer’s ratings: The result of reviewer’s rating is summarized.
3.2 Recommendation: Provide the reviewer’s opinion on the acceptability of the article by choosing one of the following:
(1) The article may be accepted for publication with/without English correction.
(2) The article may become acceptable after minor revisions of content and/or English presentation by referring to the reviewer’s comments.
(3) The article may need major revision by referring to the reviewer’s comments.
(4) The article may be rejected.

4. Reviewer’s remarks to the authors

Please provide comments and suggestions constructive and useful for the authors to improve the scientific quality and presentation of the article. If you are submitting a reviewer’s report to reject the article, you are asked to provide the reasons for rejection. Those comments are sent to the authors.

In order to make the time between manuscript submission and publication as short as possible, the reviewer is expected to make an effort to minimize the number of manuscript turnarounds between the authors and the reviewer. In preparing the reviewer’s report, it is recommended to point out all the critical issues involved in the article in the first round of the review process rather than adding new criticisms in the subsequent reviewing rounds.

5. Reviewer’s confidential remarks to the editor

Those comments are sent for the editor responsible to the review of the article, not to the authors.

5.1 Importance of the article: If you recommend “publish,” please concisely describe the background and novelty/importance of the present research to merit its publication in the journal. If you recommend “reject,” please briefly provide the reasons.
5.2 Other comments: Please provide additional information, if any, in relation with the evaluation of the article.

Guidelines for reviewers: Rapid Communications

Rapid Communications are concise papers reporting new and timely developments in respective areas of applied physics within the maximum length of four printed pages.

Since the speed of publication is of primary importance for Rapid Communications, prompt evaluation by the reviewers is appreciated. Moreover, it is important in writing your reviewer’s report to address whether the content of the article justifies accelerated publication as a Rapid Communication.

In your reviewer’s report, please evaluate the following key points:

1. Article quality rating

1.1 Impact and timeliness: Does the article have significant scientific/technological impact and timeliness, which attract the interest of researchers in the field of applied physics?
1.2 Novelty and originality: Is the article novel and original? Does the article contain significant additional material related to the works already published?
1.3 Presentation: Is the presentation of the article, which includes the organization, logical consistency, English language, etc., appropriate? Are adequate and sufficient references covered? Communication articles typically have approximately 20 or more references.

2. Overall rating and recommendation

2.1 Summary of reviewer’s ratings: The result of reviewer’s rating is summarized.
2.2 Recommendation: Provide the reviewer’s opinion on the acceptability of the article by choosing one of the following:
(1) The article may be accepted for publication with/without English correction.
(2) The article may become acceptable after minor revisions of content and/or English presentation by referring to the reviewer’s comments.
Note: If you think major revisions are necessary, please recommend rejection.
(3) The article may be rejected.

3. Reviewer’s remarks to the authors

Please provide comments and suggestions constructive and useful for the authors to improve the scientific quality and presentation of the article. If you are submitting a reviewer’s report to reject the article, you are asked to provide the reasons for rejection. Those comments are sent to the authors.

In order to make the time between manuscript submission and publication as short as possible, the reviewer is expected to make an effort to minimize the number of manuscript turnarounds between the authors and the reviewer. In preparing the reviewer’s report, it is recommended to point out all the critical issues involved in the article in the first round of the review process rather than adding new criticisms in the subsequent reviewing rounds.

4. Reviewer’s confidential remarks to the editor

Those comments are sent to the editor responsible for the review of the article, not to the authors.

4.1 Importance of the article: If you recommend “publish,” please concisely describe the background and novelty/importance of the present research to merit its publication in the journal. If you recommend “reject,” please briefly provide the reasons.
4.2 Other comments: Please provide additional information, if any, in relation with the evaluation of the article.

Guidelines for reviewers: Brief Notes

Brief Notes are short reports on significant improvements in instrumentation, fabrication processes and measurement techniques, as well as serving as an archive for knowledge useful for applied physics such as important material parameters, within the limit of three printed pages.

A shortened version of a paper or a preliminary report of an experiment should not be submitted as a Brief Note. The research topic described must be of interest to researchers working in the field of applied physics.

When reviewing a Brief Note paper, please note the above-mentioned aim of Brief Notes in addition to the usual key points outlined for Rapid Communications.

Guidelines for reviewers: Review Papers and Invited Review Papers

Review Papers and Invited Review Papers are comprehensive reports of the background of and state-of-the-art research on a specific field in applied physics. They should provide overviews of the field to nonspecialists and aim to broaden the scope of applied physics. There is no length limitation.

When reviewing a Review Paper, please address the usual key points outlined for Regular Papers taking into account the above-mentioned nature of Review Papers.

Guidelines for reviewers: Comments and Replies

Reader’s comments on an original paper published in JJAP and author’s reply to the comments may be published. Comments are expected to be published together with the corresponding reply when available. The length for each should be within two printed pages.

Assessment of comments and replies should be based on the scientific importance and interest to the journal’s readers.

Guidelines for reviewers: Papers for Special Issues

JJAP plans Special Issues on specific leading topics. A Special Issue is composed of Regular Papers, Review Papers and Brief Notes. Articles submitted to Special Issues must meet all the usual standards of quality for the journal. Articles with low scientific quality or those containing research results essentially the same as those published or submitted for publication elsewhere should not be approved for publication.

Please address the usual key points outlined for Regular Papers when evaluating articles submitted for Special Issues.

If the review process of a Special Issue paper is not completed by the deadline for the specific Special Issue for any reason, the article submission will be cancelled.