Guidelines for reviewers

Unique and independent: we allow one review per person on any given article. No repeated reviews of the same article by the same reviewer.

Not self-referent: reviews of own articles are forbidden and will be immediately removed. The account of the author will be then suppressed. No reference to your own articles. (If you suspect that a review is made by one of the authors, then contact us).

Non-commercial (No commercial web addresses or e-mail addresses, and no promotional material of any kind.)

Written in English.

Written with standard e-mail etiquette. (No ALL CAPS, HTML tags or excessive typographic symbols.)

Short titles are prefered.

Descriptive and non redundant.

Do not use references and special signs.

A good review should be useful to young researchers and students.

Provide a short description of the article. Explain why this article is worth reading.

Provide informations that people could not find elsewhere: mistyping, wrong equation number, minor errors, etc.

Stay on the level of scientific argumentation.

Try to avoid to introduce references to other articles. (no scientific advertising!)

Avoid jargon and long explanations.

Positive and negative reviews are equally welcomed.

Use LaTeX notation for mathematical formula. For example: $ exp(2 \alpha t) $.

Articles are rated using a scale from 0 to 5 where 0 is the worst and 5 is the best. For each point the article is awarded by one Earth .

important: Does the article report substantial research? Is the conclusion very important to the field to which it pertains? Will the work have a significant impact on future research?

new: are the findings of this article really new compared to what has been done previously?

correct: did you find any scientific mistakes in the text, experiments or calculations. 0 means that all results are wrong and 5 that everything is correct.

of broad interest Papers are of broad interest if they have significant implications across subfield boundaries.

readable: is this article readable by a person who is not an expert in the field?

global: give your personal global appreciation of this work.

After one year, a reviewer can post a second review for the same article if a correction is needed. The final rating of all his/her ratings will be averaged with the first article.