e-MATH

Mathematical Reviews Database:
Guide for Reviewers
 
 


Mathematical Reviews Telephone: (734) 996-5250
Reviewer Services Department FAX: (734) 996-2916
416 Fourth Street Email: mathrev@ams.org
P.O. Box 8604
Ann Arbor, MI 48107-8604
USA

Updated June 2001

The Mathematical Reviews Database

The Mathematical Reviews (MR) Database contains bibliographic data and reviews of published mathematical research from 1940 to the present.  Bibliographic data for new publications (including journal articles, books, collections and video cassettes) are added to the Database on an ongoing basis.  Most of these items are sent out for peer review (or are reviewed by summary).

Information in the MR Database is published in paper Mathematical Reviews and Current Mathematical Publications and in several electronic (MathSci) formats: MathSciNet on the web, MathSci Disc (CD-ROM) and MathSci on line.  For more information see the Editorial Statement.

The content of a review

What is a review? A review should primarily help the reader decide whether or not to read the original item. The review may range in length from a few lines to about 600 words. In most cases it should state the main results, together with enough notation to make the statements comprehensible to someone already familiar with the field. The main ideas of the proof should be sketched when this is feasible. If the results are technical, requiring extensive notation or elaborate formulas, it is preferable to describe them with a few well-chosen and relatively nontechnical sentences. Helpful comments that evaluate the item or connect it with related items or approaches are welcome.

Instead of a review of this kind, one of the following options may be appropriate in some cases:

  1. You may recommend using the author's summary, with or without your signature, or a few sentences from the summary or text of the item as the review, when you believe the selected text provides as good guidance to the reader (along the lines described above) as a review you might write yourself. In this case, we prefer that you mark clearly the relevant passages on the item and return either the item or a photocopy along with your recommendation, although we will accept such a recommendation by email. (Please do not keyboard the selected text.)
  2. You may recommend that the item be listed in the index without a published review. (See the Editorial Statement for guidance on when this is appropriate.) In this case, no review will appear in the MR Database, but the item will be accessible through a search of the printed MR indices or MathSci products.
  3. You may recommend that the item not be reviewed or indexed in the MR Database if you think the item is not within its scope .
If you choose option (2) or (3), please return the item so that our editors can reconsider it. We often do not have a duplicate copy.

References. In your review it may be desirable to include  references to closely related work. Because we try to verify each reference, you should give as much information as possible, including full author name, year of publication, journal name (or book or video title), title of the cited item, volume and paging. Please include the MR number if possible. References in the right format, including the MR number, can often be found by using MR Lookup.

Evaluative reviews. Your review may include a positive or negative evaluation of the item. Negative critical remarks should be objective, precise, documented and expressed in good taste. Vague criticism offends the author and fails to enlighten the reader. If you conclude that the item duplicates earlier work, you must cite specific references. If you think that the item is in error, the errors should be described precisely. You should be aware that the MR Database does not include author responses to critical reviews.

Book reviews. Important new books deserve careful reviews. However, a good review does not need to be very long; less than 300 words are often sufficient. You should always try to limit your review to a maximum of 1,000 words. We understand that such a review takes time to prepare. A detailed review is sometimes appropriate even if the book contains few new results; for example, if it is an expository survey of a field in which there is considerable interest, many readers will use your review to determine whether to consult the book. The same is true of expository articles. On the other hand, you might decide that a book or article needs only a very brief description.

Reviewing schedules

Time for reviewing. It is expected that you will spend no more than six weeks completing the review of an item. We understand that this may not be enough time, depending on the length and complexity of the item and your other commitments. Your promptness in returning reviews can noticeably improve the timeliness of the MR Database. You may sometimes receive items in excess of the number that you have said that you would like to receive. If we are sending you too many items, or too many at one time, please let us know. If you live outside North America and you are submitting your reviews in paper form, you should return your reviews by airmail.

Reminder notices. If you have held an item for about two months, a first reminder will be sent to you. If you receive a reminder notice and you decide that you cannot finish the reviews of the items you have at the rate of one a month or faster, please return for transfer to another reviewer those items you are unable to review.

Return for transfer. We may send you an item in an inappropriate field or language.  We may send you more than you can conveniently handle at one time, because of other demands on your time. In any of these cases, you should return the item promptly for transfer to another reviewer. No explanation is necessary when you return an item for transfer; however, we appreciate your suggestions for alternative reviewers.  Please return both the original item and the review sheet.

Transfer to a colleague. If you think that a particular item could be better handled by one of your colleagues, you may transfer it to that person even if he or she is not a regular reviewer for Mathematical Reviews. If you do so, please let us know at once, giving the complete name and address of your colleague so that we may record the transfer in our files.

Becoming inactive. At your request, we can make you "inactive" as a reviewer and stop sending you items for review until a fixed date, or until you tell us that you are ready to review again. Such a request should be sent to our Reviewer Services Department (mathrev@ams.org).

Manuscript and style elements

Electronically submitted reviews. Reviews submitted electronically can greatly speed the production process. TeX is the typesetting language used in the MR Database. However, if your review does not contain mathematical symbols, knowledge of TeX is not required to submit your review electronically. Many reviewers find that knowing simple TeX such as $x$ and $x^2$ is sufficient. Click here for complete instructions for electronic submission of review manuscripts.

Paper manuscripts. For a review sent in paper copy, the review sheet that you send us is the manuscript we will use.  We prefer keyboarded reviews.  Please use only one side of the review sheet; continue on a separate sheet if necessary. If you lose the review sheet, send your review on plain paper.  In this case, the author, title, 7-digit control number (the barcode on the item) and your name should be stated clearly at the beginning of the review. You may also use plain paper if your printer will not accept the review sheet, but please return the review sheet with the review.  Several people will read your manuscript and add their annotations. Therefore, it is essential that the manuscript be clearly legible with plenty of space between the lines.

Typesetting instructions. Formal copyediting of a manuscript, whether submitted electronically or on paper, is the responsibility of our staff. However, it is helpful on paper manuscripts if you clarify ambiguities by means of marginal notes (e.g., "one" (1) vs. "ell" (l), "zero" (0) vs. "oh" (O; in TeX math $O$), "union" ($\cup$) vs. the capital letter "you" (U), "join" ($\vee$) vs. "vee" (V), "meet" ($\wedge$) vs. capital "lambda" ($\Lambda$), etc.).

It will also be helpful on paper manuscripts if you use our color code for indicating various fonts -- explained on the review sheet. Greek letters should be written in by hand if the character is not available in your word processing program, and underlined in red pencil. Other important markings are for script (encircle with blue pencil) and Fraktur (underline with green pencil). Boldface is occasionally useful (for instance, to denote vectors as a substitute for arrows over letters); a wavy line in blue pencil below a letter indicates boldface. We automatically italicize mathematical symbols, and italics are never used in the MR Database for textual emphasis, so in general you need not indicate italics.

Formulas. You can help us to reduce production and printing costs by avoiding excessive or unnecessary quotation of complicated formulas. We linearize simple formulas, using the rule that multiplication indicated by juxtaposition is carried out before division. For example, your TeX-coded display

$${1\over{2\pi i}}\int_\Gamma {f(t)\over (t-z)}dt$$
is likely to be converted to
$(1/2\pi i)\int_\Gamma f(t)(t-z)^{-1}dt$
in our production process.

Accuracy. Ambiguities in the manuscript or notational complexities can lead to the introduction of errors during the editorial process. We strive to keep such errors to a minimum, but we need your help.  Please submit your reviews in final form.  You should make sure that any review you submit electronically runs successfully through a TeX typesetting program before you submit it.  A review submitted in paper form should be ready to be marked for typesetting. Always proofread your review before submitting it.  This is especially important if someone else has keyboarded the final copy of your review.

Languages. We ask that reviews be written in English. Since 1983, all reviews in MR have been published in English, so that they can be consistently searched in the various MR Database delivery formats.

Subject classification of reviews. The review sheet that we send you asks for your suggestions for the 5-character classifications of the item being reviewed, according to the 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification (MSC2000). We value your suggestions, because in general you have read the item more carefully and possess more expertise than the editors.

Odds and ends

Duplicate reviews. We have an agreement with Zentralblatt MATH (Zbl) that allows the inclusion in the MR Database of the same review that you submitted to Zbl.  It is helpful if you notify us when your review has also been submitted to Zbl.

Change of address or name. Please inform our Reviewer Services Department (mathrev@ams.org) at once of any change in your address (paper or email) or name. This will prevent the loss of review material and will save time and money.

Reviewing preferences. When you first became a reviewer, you indicated to us your reviewing interests and language skills.  You may have requested an update to our files on these matters since then.  If we are sending you inappropriate items, or if your interests change, please let us know your current reviewing interests.

When to keep the original item. Items sent to you for review become your property once you have reviewed them.

Recommending new reviewers. New reviewers are frequently enlisted on the recommendation of a current reviewer. Your suggestions are very welcome. A potential reviewer should ordinarily have already published reviewable work. Exceptions are made in the case of strongly recommended recent Ph.D.'s, especially if they can offer combinations that we need of expertise in certain fields and languages (our shortage of Russian-reading and Chinese-reading reviewers is chronic).

Write to us. We invite all reviewers to write to our Reviewer Services Department (mathrev@ams.org) with their questions, complaints, or special requests. We are keenly aware that MR depends on its reviewers for its existence and we welcome their correspondence---all of which will be read, carefully considered and, when appropriate, answered. (Note that MR normally does not accept unsolicited requests to review specific items.)



Subscriptions. Any requests for subscriptions to MR Database products or problems with current subscriptions should be addressed to:
 
American Mathematical Society Telephone: (800) 321-4267
Customer Services Telephone (worldwide): (401) 455-4000
P.O. Box 6248 FAX: (401) 455-4046
Providence, RI 02940-6248 Email: cust-serv@ams.org
USA Web site: www.ams.org/customers


Website of the AMS Comments:webmaster@ams.org
© Copyright 2001, American Mathematical Society