Review Contents and Style Guide

Contents of Reviews

A review of a mathematical work should give a brief and clear account of its contents. Reviews of papers in applied mathematics should concentrate on the mathematical aspects. Reading the review is not intended to be a substitute for reading the original paper; the primary purpose is to help the user to decide whether he or she needs to read the original. Therefore, the main results of the paper should be briefly described, preferably in a non-technical manner.

You as a reviewer have, in principle, no responsibility for checking the correctness or novelty of the original, but if you do discover that it contains a significant error or that it overlaps significantly with other work, you should mention that fact.

If you come to the conclusion that the summary or another part of the paper’s text describes the contents in the best way, you may decide to take such a text as (part of) your review. In this case, please clearly label extensive direct quotes in your review.

Style and Format


Reviews should preferably be written in English; reviews in French or German will also be accepted. They should be clear in style and consistent with the standards of usage in the language chosen. A reader with a moderate knowledge of the language in question should be able to understand the review. In the case of a translated title of the original, please check its correctness.


The review may vary in length from a few lines to a more elaborate text, depending particularly on your evaluation of the importance of the work you review. If possible, please prepare your review in TeX without using self-defined Macros (AMS-TeX is supported). Please do not include tables, large diagrams, drawings or formulas of minor importance. Please use alternative fonts (bold, italics etc.) only if necessary, e.g. in formulas or for highlighting the authors of cited publications (see below).


References to related work are always appreciated. When giving references, please try to be as specific and accurate as possible so that the references can be identified unambiguously.

Example 1: journal article (Zbl 1170.35066)
[{\it J. Krieger} et al., Duke Math. J. 147, No. 1, 1--53 (2009; Zbl 1170.35066)]
Example 2: book (Zbl 1151.55001)
[{\it J. Barge} and {\it J. Lannes}, Suites de Sturm, indice de Maslov et p\'eriodicit\'e de Bott. Basel: Birkh\"auser (2008; Zbl 1151.55001)]

To look up the Zbl number you may use the zbMATH Document Search or the zbMATH Citation Matcher. For a more detailed exposition of zbMATH’s citation standards please see our Citation Manual in A4 or in Letter format.

Proof reading

Please note that we now deal with some 120,000 items a year and we cannot send proofs. It is thus extremely important that the content of your manuscript is as accurate as possible.

Subject Classification

The publications you receive for reviewing are usually classified by the authors or our editors according to the Mathematics Subject Classification (MSC) 2010.

The provided MSC codes may not be suitable or complete; therefore, we kindly ask you to check the suggested classification.


Please describe the publication’s content with a set of keywords that give a quick outline of the subjects covered. If there are preassigned keywords, you may also use (some of) them if you consider them suitable.

Please read also: Organizational Aspects of the Reviewing Task, Legal Matters, and Benefits and Privileges for Reviewers.

For a printable version please go to our complete Guide for Reviewers in A4 or in Letter format.