Reviewer Information

SPIE journals use a web-based peer-review system. To register yourself as a potential reviewer, or to update your information, choose the journal related to research area to the right. If you have been an author or reviewer for an SPIE journal  in the past, there should already be an account established for you in the system. If you have never been an author or reviewer for an SPIE journal, you will need to set up a new account. Please note that the reviewer database is shared between journals; if you already have a login for one SPIE journal, you do not need to create a separate account to become a reviewer for a different journal.

We thank you for taking the time and offering your talent to this critical aspect of technical publishing.

Become a reviewer ↗

Note: Reviewer databases for Advanced Photonics and Advanced Photonics Nexus are managed by our copublisher, Chinese Laser Press, and use a different online review system. Reviewer login for those journals can be accessed here: Advanced Photonics and Advanced Photonics Nexus

The anonymous evaluation of a technical paper should follow some generally accepted professional guidelines, and it places the reviewer under certain obligations to the author and the journal.

Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers should disclose conflicts of interest resulting from direct competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, and avoid cases in which such conflicts preclude an objective evaluation. If you are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest, you should seek advice from the journal.

If you are unable to review a manuscript, you should decline the invitation promptly, and you are encouraged to provide suggestions of other potential reviewers who would be qualified to examine the manuscript.

Conference Proceedings

Reviewers should be aware that SPIE permits manuscripts based partly or entirely on scientific content previously reported in SPIE proceedings to be submitted to SPIE journals. For more information, please read our full policy on submission of conference proceedings papers to SPIE journals. Questions about this policy may be directed to the editorial office at journals@spie.org.

Generative AI: Recommended Best Practices for Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to follow the same ethical standards regardless of whether AI tools are used for limited assistance.

• Maintain strict confidentiality. Manuscripts, figures, data, and review comments must not be entered into web-based LLMs. Doing so constitutes a breach of peer-review confidentiality.
• Do not delegate the review to AI tools. AI tools may be used to assist with review preparation, including drafting or evaluation, provided that reviewers independently assess, verify, and agree with all content. Responsibility for the substance and recommendations of the review rests entirely with the reviewer.
• Permitted, limited AI uses. Reviewers may use AI tools for:
  • high-level background summaries of a field
  • language or stylistic polishing of their own review text

provided no manuscript content is uploaded and confidentiality is preserved.

• Validate all AI-assisted output. Any information obtained via AI tools must be independently verified. Reviewers are responsible for accuracy, relevance, and appropriate use in their reviews.
• Disclose AI use to the editor. Any use of AI tools in the review process must be disclosed in the "Private Comments to Editor" field.
• Raise content concerns, not AI suspicions. If results seem unclear, references incorrect, or methods incomplete, reviewers should flag these issues without speculating about AI involvement.

Prohibited Uses of AI Tools

AI tools must not be used in ways that:

• Fabricate or falsify data, results, references, or citations
• Disguise unsupported data or lack of methodological rigor
• Obscure authorship responsibility
• Violate confidentiality in peer review.

Undisclosed AI use that materially affects results or interpretation may be treated as a research integrity concern.

Reviewers are also encouraged to refer to the following resources:

SPIE Guidelines for Ethical Publishing
Reviewers, authors, and editors are expected to read and abide by these ethical publishing guidelines from SPIE.

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
This is a list of basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), of which SPIE is a member.

Editorials on Peer Review:

• Four Attributes of an Excellent Peer Review — this editorial by former Optical Engineering Editor-in-Chief Michael T. Eismann identifies four attributes that are essential to a high-quality peer review.
• The Editorial Review Process and How to Write a Good Scientific Paper: a Reviewer’s Checklist — these editorials by former JM³ Editor-in-Chief Chris Mack outline the review process, and guide reviewers through a list of questions that will help them determine the novelty, significance, accuracy, and quality of a paper.

SPIE has partnered with e-learning platform Researcher.Life to offer a three-hour reviewer training course. This course is primarily aimed at graduate students and early career professionals, but established researchers may also benefit from the curriculum. This interactive course covers the nuts and bolts of how to referee a journal article, as well as guidelines for best practices and ethical responsibilities.

Sign up ↗

SPIE would like to thank the reviewers who have contributed to the success of our journals.