Skip to content

Please be aware that some material may contain words, descriptions or illustrations which will not reflect current scientific understanding and may be considered in today's context inaccurate, unethical, offensive or distressing.


Containing referee's reports arranged alphabetically by the lead author of the paper submitted to the Royal Society for review in 1932 to 1933.

Notable referees and authors include Douglas Rayner Hartree, Leslie Harold Martin and Ralph Howard Fowler.

When report is on a standardised form (D), the questions are:
1. Whether or not the paper should be read before the Society
2. Whether the paper should or should not be published by the Society
3. Whether, in the former case, it should be published in the 'Philosophical Transactions' or 'Proceedings'
4. Whether it should be published in full or only in part or whether any material modifications are necessary
5. Which illustrations, if any, accompanying the paper should be reproduced
General remarks

Reference number
Earliest possible date
Physical description
Loose paper in folders
Page extent
One box comprising 135 reports

Use this record


Referees' reports: volume 48, peer reviews of scientific papers submitted to the Royal Society for publication, 1932-1933, RR/48, The Royal Society Archives, London,, accessed on 22 July 2024

Link to this record

Embed this record

<iframe src="" title="Referees' reports: volume 48, peer reviews of scientific papers submitted to the Royal Society for publication" allow="fullscreen" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>

Explore the collection

  • Referee Reports

    Date: 1832-1949

    This collection contains reports on scientific papers submitted for publication to the Royal Society. Started in 1832 when the system was formalised, it is a record of the origins of peer review publishing in practice.

    View collection