Guidelines for reviewers

Peer review is one of the cornerstones of the scientific and editorial quality of the Revista Mexicana de Física. The purpose of this guide is to provide reviewers with clear and consistent criteria for evaluating manuscripts, thereby promoting objective, constructive, ethical, and timely reviews.

The reviewer’s role is not only to recommend the acceptance, revision or rejection of a manuscript, but also to contribute to strengthening the scientific quality, clarity, and rigor of the submitted work.

Reviewer Request

Before receiving any review request, you must be registered as a reviewer on the Revista Mexicana de Física platform. Registration is done by invitation only, extended by the editors based on your area of expertise.

Once registered, the initial request to review a manuscript arrives by email and contain the following elements:

  • The article title and abstract, so you can assess whether the topic falls within your area of expertise before accepting the review.
  • The Review Type (
  • Links that allow you to accept or decline the review invitation. Revista Mexicana de Física requires Reviews of original research articles within 2–3 weeks. If you need extra time, please consult the section editors.
  • Any special instructions from the section editor, if applicable.

Reviewer Report

Main text intended for editors and authors.

Summary. Briefly explain what the paper is about, its main objectives, and the approach used by the authors.

Context. Provide your views on:

  • Relevance and interest to the Mexican and international physics community.
  • Novelty and originality of the contribution. 
  • Significance of the results within the field.

Recommendation. Make a clear recommendation supported by evidence:

  • Request Revisions: the Reviewer can request revisions from the author without opening a new review round. This is common when minor revisions are required which the editor can approve without resubmitting for review.
  • Resubmit for Review: state whether you require the article to be resubmitted for another round of review. The Reviewer can request revisions from the author that will need to go through another round of review. Once revisions are received, a new review round will need to be created.
  • Send to Copyediting: recommend to publish the article as-is.
  • Decline Submission: the Reviewer can recommend to submit the article to another journal.

Private Comments for the Editor (if any):

These comments will not be shared with the authors without your prior consent.

  • Report any ethical concerns (such as plagiarism or duplicate publication) directly to the section editor, keeping them out of the main report.
  • Mention any limitations in your review, whether due to expertise, time, or other relevant factors.

About the quality of the manuscript

To facilitate the review process, reviewers are encouraged to consider the following aspects during the evaluation of the manuscript:

1. Title: The title should be concise, clear, and representative of the research presented.

2. Abstract: The abstracts in both English and Spanish must be consistent and should clearly and briefly describe the objectives of the study, the methodology employed, the main results, and the principal conclusions.

3. Originality and innovation: Reviewers are asked to assess the originality and scientific contribution of the work, ensuring that it is not merely a minor variation of previously published studies with similar methods, developments, or conclusions.

4. Scientific relevance: The manuscript should provide useful, novel, or relevant contributions to the scientific community.

5. Organization and structure: The manuscript should be clearly organized and logically structured to facilitate understanding.

 6. Methodological validity: The methods should be described in sufficient detail to allow reproducibility by readers familiar with the subject. Reviewers should also evaluate whether the theoretical development, experiments, measurements, simulations, or analyses performed are adequate and sufficient.

 7. Figures and tables: Figures and tables should be relevant, clear, and useful for understanding the manuscript. Captions and titles must adequately describe their content, and all figures and tables should be properly cited within the text. In addition, the figure legends and tick labels on the plots must be clear, properly formatted, and easily legible.

8. Quality of language: The manuscript should be written in a clear and precise manner, understandable even to readers who are not specialists in the specific field. Unnecessary jargon or undefined terminology should be avoided.

9. Verifiability of calculations and results: The calculations, derivations, and reported results should be scientifically and mathematically consistent and verifiable.

10. Scientific rigor and conclusions: The conclusions must be fully supported by the results presented. If alternative methods, additional tests, or complementary analyses could strengthen the work, reviewers are encouraged to suggest them.

11. References: References should be sufficient, relevant, and up to date. Authors must properly acknowledge relevant prior contributions.

12. General comments: Even when a manuscript is well written and technically sound, reviewers’ comments can significantly improve its quality. Regardless of the final recommendation (acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection), reviewers are encouraged to provide clear, constructive, and professional comments.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not: share the manuscript with third parties without editorial authorization, use information contained in the manuscript for personal or academic benefit, distribute unpublished figures, data, or results, upload part or all of the manuscript content to public platforms or artificial intelligence systems that may store information.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must immediately inform the editor of any conflict of interest that could compromise the objectivity of the evaluation, including: recent collaborations with the authors, direct institutional or employment relationships, academic or personal competition, financial interests related to the work. In such cases, the reviewer should decline the invitation to evaluate the manuscript.