Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,862 answers , 20,637 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
502 active unimported users
More ...

How "formal" and complete do PhysicsOverflow reviews have to be?

+ 5 like - 0 dislike
856 views
I always thought one advantige of our Reviews section is among other things to make refereeing and judging papers more efficient and faster than how it can be done in journals. But when preparing an answer for the latest submission I have uploaded I just realize that I at least am not much faster than when doing it for a journal, probably due to the following question that bothers me: How "formal" and complete do we want individual answers to submissions (reviews) to be? Do they have to comply with the exactly same standard and form required for journal reviews? Or are some more "free style" partial answers that do not conclusively judge the paper as a whole, but deal only with (important enough) specific aspects be acceptable and nice to have too?
asked Jul 9, 2014 in Discussion by Dilaton (4,295 points) [ revision history ]
retagged Jul 11, 2014 by dimension10
We already have a few submissions, but I really think reviewing (answering) and discussing them should start now too! Maybe some examples, from @RonMaimon who said he could produce them rather easily, could help to "break the ice" ... ;-)?
Could the downvoter please explain in a comment or apropriate answer what he disagrees with? It would be good, if we could adopt the professional attitude of MathOverflow. There, people refrain from downvoting meta questions (if they are not spam, personal attacks, off topic nonsense, etc), but they write answers which can then be voted on instead. I mean in this particular case, it would be nice to post an answer if you think for example that PhysicsOverflow reviews should completely elucidate every aspect of the paper whereas partial answers that for example explain what is particularly nice about it, point out an error in the way of thinking or calculation, are not acceptable. Just casting a single unexplained downvote on this post which is intended to help the reviews business getting started, is really not helpful.

@Dilaton It was my downvote, sorry, removed. I was afraid the question would lead to constraints on how a review should or should not be too soon, leading to people being discouraged from posting reviews, and there isn't even a single review yet (which is surprising, given how enthusiastic many people were about the reviews section)! But I'm glad that Vladimir's and Ron's answers were upvoted.

Sorry for not explaining the downvote, I was then on an internet pack which was running out.

Hi Dimension10, thanks for the clarification ;-)

Yes, may question was by no means intended to put up any restrictions and rules on PhysicsOverflow reviews...

But I got the impression that people might be hesitant to write reviews and (partial) answers to submissions (it happend to me too), because it was not clear enough what the expected standard is. So I posted this questions in the hope that we can encourage partial reviews too, to finally get the business started. And that is what Ron did indeed in his nice answer.

I read the turbulence paper, and it looked super, but I found myself intimidated when going to click "correct" and "original", because I really wasn't 100% sure on either point! But I guess one should set one's insecurities aside and just write a damn review, and let the self-correcting process start.

2 Answers

+ 5 like - 0 dislike

I think that "free style" partial answers that do not conclusively judge the paper as a whole, but deal only with its important enough specific aspects are acceptable and nice too.

answered Jul 10, 2014 by Vladimir Kalitvianski (22 points) [ no revision ]
reshown Aug 21, 2014 by dimension10
+ 3 like - 0 dislike

Since we have about zero reviews now, I think that any kind of review will be acceptable, so long as it shows a significant attempt to grapple with the contents of the paper. I think a good review is something that shows how a calculation method can be extended, points out related literature that is not in the reference list, extends the paper with a nontrivial observation, to show importance, or gives a negative review with detailed explanation of what is wrong.

The quality will only improve once some sort of competition starts, but the first reviews will be setting a tone. But it shouldn't take ~4months as is sometimes standard on journals. Just my 2c. Agree with Vladimir too.
 

answered Jul 12, 2014 by Ron Maimon (7,535 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsOverfl$\varnothing$w
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...