Reviewers' Guidelines

First please make sure that you as a reviewer fulfill the requirement in the following table. Please refer to the text below for more information.

1. Reviewer eligibility:

Remark to co-reviewers: If you wish to have a co-reviewer, please ask the Section Editor to add this person to the list of reviewers. 

2. Criteria for publication:

While reviewing a paper please use the following table as guidance.

3. More details on the criteria:

  1. Usefulness. The content of the article represents a useful addition to the knowledge base of the OpenFOAM community. When assessing the significance of a manuscript the reviewer should bear in mind that the target group is the OpenFOAM community. In particular, an article may be useful for the OpenFOAM community, but not for the general scientific community. Thus, while the significance of the manuscript could lie in its original scientific content it could also lie in, for example, a new and particularly clear exposition of a numerical aspect of OpenFOAM.
  2. Reproducibility. The level of detail in the article together with additional material (case files, codes etc) enables the reader to reproduce the reported results. In particular all code essential for reproducing the results should be made available or described in sufficient detail to allow reproduction of the results. Similarly the content of all essential case setup files (content of controlDict, fvSchemes, fvSolution etc.) should be made available to the reader. In sections Full papers and Review papers we require auxiliary data. For this the authors have to include at least one open case as auxiliary data. In addition they can add any number of confidential cases. The open case has to be discussed in the manuscript (not only confidential geometries). For this authors should provide either a compile script or an Allrun script. For technical notes authors are not required to submit auxiliary data, in this case they have to highlight in a section the benefit to the community.
  3. Rigor. The rationale for the study is clear and valid. The methodology and analysis are sound and are performed to a high technical standard.
  4. Consistence. Conclusions are presented in a clear and concise manner and are backed by the results presented in the article.
  5. Language. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in British or American English. It should be consistent. Articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. We may reject papers that do not meet these standards.
  6. Equations are correct and all used symbols are defined. Note that since the target group of OFJ is the OpenFOAM community, authors are allowed to use OpenFOAM lingo without explaining the syntax in detail, e.g. refer to OpenFOAM classes and functions without further descriptions.
  7. Unpublished. The results reported, or parts thereof, have not been published in this form elsewhere.
  8. Replication. If the study has the character of replication of a previous study, this should be clearly stated together with a description of the addition to the knowledge base that the new study represents.

Remark: If the language and equations of a paper are difficult to understand or include many errors, we may recommend that authors seek independent editorial help before submitting a revision. These services can be found on the web using search terms like “scientific editing service” or “manuscript editing service.”

4. Additional points:

  1. Give a 5-10 lines summary of the content of the manuscript without assessing its quality.
  2. Are there aspects or sections of the manuscript that you do not feel competent to review? If so, which? (Remark: On the review form, there is a place for Author+Editor and another for Editor only. Thus, this data can be placed on the latter.)
  3. Is the abstract and the conclusion a good and concise description of the content of the paper?
  4. Did you thoroughly check the equations for errors?
  5. Are the figure legends and any text in the figures readable?
  6. Are all symbols used in the text properly defined?


Declaring competing interests:

A competing interest is anything that interferes with, or could be perceived as potentially interfering with, an objective assessment of a manuscript. Typically this could be due to a reviewer having a connection with one of the authors. Since OFJ operates a double blind review process, the reviewer will not know the identities of the manuscript authors. Yet, on some occasions the manuscript content or style may indirectly allow the reviewer to guess the author identity e.g. if the manuscript is about an existing OpenFOAM extension maintained by the author. In such cases, you should reject the request to review the article if your connection to one or more authors is too close. Examples could be that you have previously collaborated and published together or that you are in a conflict with one of the authors.

Do not accept a review assignment if you have a competing interest, or feel unable to give an objective assessment. If you are unsure whether your relationship qualifies as a competing interest, contact the journal editor for advice. If we ask you to complete the review anyway, be sure to declare the competing interest when you submit your review.

If you find any information in any form on the identity of the author’s please report this immediately to your Section Editor (double blind review process).


Crediting collaborators

Co-reviewing is a great way to gain peer review experience under the mentorship of an experienced reviewer and we encourage this collaboration. If you plan to have help completing the review, e.g. from a PhD student, you should share your collaborator’s name with the journal and ask the Editor to add this person as an additional reviewer. Be careful not to include your or your collaborator’s name in the text of the review itself. Competing interests and confidentiality policies apply to all reviewers.



Keep manuscripts and correspondence confidential and do not share information about submissions with anyone else unless previously agreed with the Editor. We expect that reviewers will not make use of any material or take advantage of any information they gain through the peer review process.


Time to review

Aim to complete your review within 1 month. If you need more time to perform the review, please email us as soon as possible.


Qualifications of reviewer

If the reviewer feels unqualified for judging certain aspects or parts of the paper, this should be clearly stated in the comment to the editor.




This document is work in progress. If you find some missing points, please contact the editors at editor<at>