• 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.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

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


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,054 questions , 2,207 unanswered
5,347 answers , 22,728 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  What is expected from a review?

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

What is expected from a review? Writing a thorough review as I'd do it when refereeing for a journal is quite time-consuming. On the other hand, it would be fairly easy in many cases to just give an incomplete impression about the perceived value, interesting features, difficulties in reading, etc. Is this enough to justify giving it as an answer, or should these just be regarded as comments?

asked Aug 26, 2014 in Discussion by Arnold Neumaier (15,787 points) [ no revision ]

1 Answer

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

Simple physics comments are welcome, for example, if you are confused on a point you can say "what's going on in Section 3?" as a comment. You can say "The results are compatible with the work I know from ref A and ref B, but the methods are different, so it is not clear that the thing is accurate" and so on. The idea is to keep focused on the technical content, so that comments about bad style or confusing presentation are better dealt with by adding a rephrasing of the text in the question/summary of the paper, or commenting to get a clarification.

But at this early stage, I personally was hoping that we could set the tone for the site on a high level by making the reviews as complete as you would for a journal. That's not a requirement, it's just a request for the first dozen or so reviews. This hopefully doesn't require duplicative work--- if you have old journal reviews you can import the papers and post them here with only minor edits, even anonymously. But then as the review section grows, and people expect full reviews with content as a matter of routine, other reviews which are more probing or incomplete will be just as welcome, but less upvoted.

On a voting site, the standards for voting up/down are dynamically established at the early stages, and then frozen in. The idea is to set a high tone so that when the site grows, the voting is professional, and so that people will automatically feel disinclined to post  political statements with no physics content.

answered Aug 26, 2014 by Ron Maimon (7,720 points) [ revision history ]

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:
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).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

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

Your rights