Referee (parecerista) é o cientista que avalia a qualidade de um paper (artigo) para um journal (revista) científica. Ele não ganha nada por isso, é um trabalho voluntário. Bom, dá para por no Lattes e às vezes você ganha preprints (cópias do seu paper) extras caso você publique na revista ou um desconto (pequeno) nas taxas de publicação em revistas de open acess (acesso aberto).

Exemplo do que um referee deve avaliar em um artigo:

Referee guidelines for Papers in Journal of Physics A

When writing your report it will be helpful to the author(s) and the Editors if you could consider the following key points related to scientific content, quality and presentation. The Paper should fall within the scope of the journal, and the motivation and relevance of the research are particularly important.

To be acceptable for publication, Papers should either:

1. be able to demonstrate clearly a physical or potential physical application; or
2. investigate models which develop new useful methodology.

Comments intended for the Editors only should be written separately.

Technical detail

1. Scientific merit: Notably scientific rigour, accuracy and correctness.
2. Clarity of expression and communication of ideas, readability and discussion of concepts.
3. Sufficient discussion of the context of the work, and suitable referencing.
4. Appropriateness of the material for the journal.

Quality

1. Originality: Is the work relevant and novel? Does it add significantly to results that are already published? Is this Paper likely to be cited in future?
2. Motivation: Does the problem considered have a sound motivation? All Papers should clearly demonstrate the scientific interest of the results. Papers should not rely solely on previous literature or novelty to motivate publication.
3. Is the content of sufficient interest for the space required? Should it be shortened? If so please explain how.
4. Repetition: Have significant parts of the manuscript already been published? Serial publications are not encouraged and a follow-up Paper must contain significant new material.

On the Report Form, you are asked to rate the quality of the Paper and recommend acceptance, amendments or rejection. Generally, Papers rated Q4 – ‘Low quality work’ or Q5 – ‘Extremely poor work’ should be rejected. If you rate the Paper as Q3 – ‘Borderline work – of limited interest’ and recommend amendments or acceptance, please give the reasons why you feel it should be published.

Presentation

1. Title: Is it adequate and appropriate?
2. Abstract: Does it contain the essential information of the article? Is it complete by itself and suitable for direct inclusion in an abstracting service?
3. Diagrams, tables, and captions: Are they clear and essential?
4. Text and mathematics: Are they brief but still clear? If you recommend shortening please suggest what should be omitted.
5. Conclusion: Does the Paper contain a carefully written conclusion, summarizing what has been learned and why it is interesting and useful?
6. Finally, referees are not expected to correct punctuation or grammar except when the meaning needs clarification by an expert.

Thank you for your help reviewing articles for IOP Journals. We hope that you have found our refereeing procedure straightforward and would welcome your comments on any improvements we could make in our service to referees and to authors.