General Comments

Every scientific article submitted to AJMP is peer-reviewed by individuals selected for their knowledge of the topic of the article, and for their objectivity and experience in assessing the scientific merit and clarity of presentation of scientific publications.

Because you meet these criteria, you have been asked to review an article for AJMP. The Journal’s editor and associate editors appreciate your willingness to serve in this capacity. Your review will contribute to the scientific accuracy of the Journal, and will help the author(s) present their research in an understandable and succinct manner.

Your review should provide a critical and impersonal evaluation that includes suggestions to be considered and actions to be taken to make the article acceptable for publication. Your comments should provide both a general impression [General Comments] of the article and specific suggestions [Specific Comments] for the article’s improvement. Both categories of comments will be shared anonymously with the author(s).  Each comment should be numbered for ease of response by the authors.  As a reviewer, you are not expected to redesign the experiment described in the article, or to recommend extensive changes in the method used or data reported in the article. Please focus your remarks on the article, and not on how you would have performed the experiment. You should also provide an overall appraisal of the article, and guidance regarding its disposition in the form of Comments to the Editor.  These comments will not be shared with the author(s). Please upload your comments as a Word document or pdf file. Please do not upload your comments in a zip file because those files are often difficult for the authors to open.

If you believe the article is unworthy of publication in Medical Physics, you must state your reasons objectively, completely and without prejudice. Critical comments are important in a review, but they must always be presented in a respectful manner.

It is not necessary for the referee to identify misspellings, typographical errors or grammatical misconstructions, unless these are technical in nature and might not be picked up during the copyediting process. Routine misspellings and other grammatical errors will be corrected by the copyeditors. However, if the referee believes that the English needs to be improved, the referee may request of the authors that they have the paper reviewed before the manuscript is submitted. Manuscripts are expected to be written in excellent English and composed according to AJMP specifications, including article headings and references. A referee may return the manuscript without review if the English is so poor that reading it becomes a burden.

In serving as a referee, it is permissible to ask a student or fellow to review an article as a learning experience, provided that the need for confidentiality is stressed. However, you also must review the article and the comments of the student or fellow, and submit the review as your own work.

Specific Comments

Please respond promptly to a request to serve as a referee. Reviews must be completed as quickly as possible, and no later than 2 weeks from the date of invitation. If you are unable to meet this requirement, please decline the invitation to review at your earliest opportunity so a replacement referee can be identified.