For Reviewers

Reviewers' Guidelines

1. In order to guarantee the fairness of the peer review process, reviewers have interest conflicts with any of the authors should decline to review. If one is unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest, please seek advice from the editorial office at

2. High Power Laser Science and Engineering s is pursuing a timely publication. Please try to complete the review in a reasonable time-frame. If reviewers couldn’t complete it in the given time, please contact the editor for an extension.

3. Please read the review criteria of High Power Laser Science and Engineering before reviewing.

4. Please provide evidences with appropriate references to substantiate general statements. Detailed review comments should be in line with the recommendations.

5. Please ensure the review comments fair and unbiased.

6. Please keep all manuscript and review details confidential.

Review Criteria

High Power Laser Science and Engineering publishes research that seeks to uncover the underlying science and engineering in the fields of high energy density physics, high power lasers, advanced laser technology and applications and laser components. The journal seeks high-quality, high-impact articles with specific emphasis on the following criteria. Please comment on the items mentioned in the acceptance criteria in your review comments so that the editor could make a recommendation. Ratings of Outstanding, significant or moderately significant are required for acceptance.

Acceptance Criteria


  • Quality of Novelty:

Does the manuscript provide any new and important results to the field in addition to being correct technically?

  • Appropriateness for High Power Laser Science and Engineering:

Is the manuscript of sufficient interest to the readers of the journal? Does the subject material fall within the scope of the journal?

  • Quality of Presentation:

Is the title accurate and is the abstract comprehensible? Is the manuscript clearly written and logically organized? Are figures and tables understandable and readable as submitted, including all captions and labels? Is the quality of English language usage and grammar appropriate for publication?

Rating Options (overall): Outstanding, Significant, Moderately significant, Marginal, Not significant, Erroneous or Trivial

Confidence of your evaluation:

To what extend do you believe your comments are correct and professional?

Rating Options: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Ethical Criteria

The peer review process requires that reviewers involved behave responsibly and ethically. The reviewers should declare any potential conflicting or competing interests (which may, for example, be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious), respect the confidentiality of peer review, be objective and constructive in the reviews, and be specific in the criticisms, and provide evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements such as, ‘this work has been done before’, to help editors in their evaluation and decision and in fairness to the authors.

Peer Review Process

1. First Review

Manuscripts are screened by the editorial office regarding the manuscript format and the duplication rate. Manuscripts are then preliminarily evaluated by the editors-in-chief and editorial board members to ensure they meet the journal's rigorous scientific standards and are eligible for peer review.

2. Peer Review

Manuscripts that meet these criteria are single-blind reviewed by at least two referees. The referees provide detailed comments and recommendations to help the editorial board members arrive at the appropriate editorial decision.

3. Author Revision

Authors should carefully address all reviewer comments when submitting a revised manuscript.

4. Re-review

Revised manuscripts are evaluated by the editorial board members and may be sent to the original or new referees. The editors-in-chief have the ultimate authority to accept or reject a submission.

5. Appeal:

Authors may appeal to the editorial office to reconsider a rejection decision if they believe that the reviewers have seriously misjudged the manuscript. All appeals will be given careful consideration. The editorial board members and/or editors-in-chief will determine if further consideration is merited or if the original decision should stand.

*Submissions from members of the editorial board are handled by an editorial board member who is not connected with the manuscript to ensure that such submissions receive an objective and unbiased evaluation. Information about the review process for such submissions is redacted from the view of any editors who are authors of the paper within the journal's online submission and review system.

How to become a reviewer

High Power Laser Science and Engineering adopts ScholarOne system. If you are interested in reviewing for High Power Laser Science and Engineering, please create an account here. If you have already an author or reviewer for High Power Laser Science and Engineering (and/or Chinese Optics Letters, Advanced Photonics) in the past, you will already have an account. Once you have logged in, you may update your contact information and expertise in the system.