Instructions for Referees

The Journal de l’École polytechnique applies to each submission either a quick rejection, or a blind peer review process by anonymous referees. The Editorial Board of the JEP expects the referees to provide a careful assessment of the paper which they review. The referees should keep in mind that the JEP publishes approximately 35 articles a year, in all domains of pure and applied mathematics. As a consequence, the Editorial Board must be very selective, and the work of the referees is of fundamental importance to help the Editors in making their choice. The JEP aims at reaching the level of the best international journals in the domains it covers.

All manuscripts should be regarded as privileged and confidential, and their contents not disclosed without the author’s permission.

Depending on the length of the article, a report is expected between two and four months. A shorter period will be especially appreciated by the Editorial Board and the authors in case of rejection. The referees are kindly asked to suggest other names as possible referees in case they are not able to submit a report within four months.

An anonymous report will be sent to the author. This report should contain detailed comments, concrete criticisms, and constructive suggestions about the content and exposition of the paper. Some questions to keep in mind are:

  • Is the presentation clear and well organized?
  • Are the results new and interesting?
  • Are the proofs correct and given in adequate detail, or can they be substantially simplified?
  • Do the introduction and abstract give an adequate summary?

The report can be pasted on the web site of the Journal, and/or a pdf file may be downloaded. The report can also simply be sent by mail to the Editor in charge.

Specific comments for the Editor can be pasted on the web site of the journal, or sent by mail to the Editor in charge. They should set forth the frank opinion about the paper and recommend:

  1. Accept Submission,
  2. Light Revision Required,
  3. Substantial Revision Required,
  4. Decline submission,

Options 1 and 2 do not lead to a new evaluation round, unlike Option 3, which should be used only if the referee is convinced that the paper will be acceptable once the revisions are made.