Is scanning an handwritten peer-review suitable for editor/authors? I peer-reviewed a manuscript and am about to send my conclusions to the editor. It occurs to me, though, that because there are many details to be checked/changed in various places of the paper (mathematical notations, in particular), it will take quite some time for me to type it into a proper review (probably using TeX, because it is math-heavy).

So, I am wondering: since my hand-writing is decent and people don't usually find it too hard to decipher, could I simply scan my annotated copy of the paper, along with one page of notes, to the editor? Or will that be unacceptable to them?

I think it raises a few questions, going from practicalities:


will it be as useful as a thoroughly written-down review?
does it give more work to the editor?
should I also include a summary of my comments, in computerized form?


to ethical questions:


does handwritten notes breach rules of anonymity?


I suppose people used to do that in older times, but it have never received a hand-written review so far, so it is (at least in my field) unusual.



So: should I do it? if I do it, what precautions should I take?
I do not think that there is anything wrong with a scanned handwritten report. As for anonymity: you may even sign your referee report as it is your decision to stay anonymous or not. As for usefulness: I once received an annotated scanned manuscript as a referee report at is was tremendously helpful (as there were several suggestions for formulations which greatly increased the readability). A computerized summary would also be helpful for the editor to form the decision and also for the authors to find out what you main points are (so that they can distinguish between just typo corrections and serious remarks).