A description of editorial Policies and Practices of PRC is published in the January and July issues and includes:
Physical Review C is published by the American Physical Society. It prints papers which report results of research in nuclear physics and related fields such as nuclear astrophysics.
Although the Council of the APS has the final responsibility for Physical Review C, the Council has delegated some of the responsibilities to its Publications Oversight Committee, to the Editor-in-Chief, and to the Editor of the journal. The journal has an Editorial Board whose members are listed on the inside cover of the journal. They are appointed for three-year terms by the Editor-in-Chief upon recommendation of the Editors, after consultation with the APS Division of Nuclear Physics. They advise the Editor on editorial matters.
Editorial policy is guided by the following statement adopted
in April, 1995 by the Council of the APS:
TYPES OF PAPERS
In addition to regular articles, Physical Review C publishes
Rapid Communications, Brief Reports, and Comments.
These are limited in length; five printed pages for Rapid
Communications, four for Brief Reports, and two for Comments and Replies.
Short Paper sections may not be used for serial publication.
The Rapid Communications section is intended for the
accelerated publication of important new results. Expanded
follow-up articles are strongly encouraged.
Brief Reports are reports on completed research which do
not warrant publication as a regular article. Addenda to
papers previously published in Physical Review C are also
published in the Brief Reports section.
The Comments section of Physical Review C is restricted to
papers which criticize or correct papers of other authors
previously published in Physical Review C. While Comments
may criticize the work, they should not criticize the authors.
Comments may point out specific errors, misinterpretations,
or omissions of references to earlier work.
However, when possible, an Erratum should be used for these purposes
rather than a Comment.
Comments should not
contain polemics, nor should they reiterate previously
published disagreements.
A Comment is usually sent to the authors of the work to
which the Comment refers for their opinions. If these authors
consider the Comment useful, we usually publish it. If they
feel that it should not be published or if they recommend
revisions before publication, they should not regard
themselves as anonymous referees. Their opinions will be sent
over their signatures to the authors of the Comment and,
when appropriate, to an independent anonymous referee.
If the Comment is accepted for publication, the authors to
whose work the Comment refers may wish to submit a Reply
to the Comment. This can be done at any time. If they want
both the Reply and the Comment to be published together,
they must provide a Reply in a timely fashion following
notification of acceptance of the original Comment. The
Reply will be sent to the authors of the original Comment for
evaluation. If they feel the Reply should not be published, or
if they recommend revision, their response will be sent over
their signature to the authors of the Reply and, when
appropriate, to an independent referee.
Once a Comment or a Reply to the Comment has been
received, only revisions to the manuscripts requested by the
referees or the Editors will be allowed (except for minor
matters such as spelling or grammar).
Errata are notices of errors or omissions in papers previously
published in Physical Review C. Errata should be as brief
as possible. An Erratum should contain a short statement of the
correction(s) and, where appropriate, a description of any effects
on the conclusions of the paper.
Papers must contain new results. The question occasionally
arises whether confirmation of previously published results
justifies publication of a manuscript. This depends on the
importance of the measurement, whether there has been a
controversy involving the earlier measurement or other
measurements by the same authors, the length of the manuscript
(a Brief Report may be acceptable where a long article is
not), whether the repetition is a small part of the manuscript
or all of it, and whether the same authors have previously
published similar information. Material previously published
in a Letters journal, as a Rapid Communication, or in a
Conference Proceedings is acceptable for publication in
Physical Review C provided the submitted manuscript
presents considerably more information enabling the reader to
get a substantially improved understanding of the subject.
We do not usually accept figures, tables, or text material
which have been previously published, but each case is
considered individually. Previously published material should
only be referenced, not repeated. Previous publication of
material in a thesis does not preclude publication of appropriate
parts of the material in Physical Review C.
If a manuscript submitted to Physical Review C is on a topic
not within the purview, but may be suitable for
another Physical Review journal, the Editors will transfer
the paper to the appropriate journal and inform the author(s) of
that transfer.
Papers advancing new theoretical views on fundamental principles
or theories must contain convincing arguments that the new predictions
and interpretations are distinguishable from existing knowledge, at
least in principle, and do not contradict established experimental
results. Mathematical and computational papers that do not have
application to physics are generally not suitable for Physical Review
C.
Papers that describe proposed experiments fall into a special
category. For such papers to be acceptable, the experiments must be
demonstrated to be novel and feasible. It is the authors' responsibility
to show that their proposal is likely to stimulate research that might not
otherwise be undertaken. Generally not suitable for Physical Review
are papers proposing a new experiment using straightforward calculations
based on well-known theories or models, and papers describing simulations of
apparatus or optimization and feasibility studies.
Submission of a manuscript is a representation that the
manuscript has not been published previously and is not
currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. If the
Editors find that this is not the case, the manuscript is
considered withdrawn and will not be considered further by
Physical Review C.
When a manuscript has several authors, one of them, the corresponding
author, should be designated to receive and respond to correspondence
from the editors. This designation can be changed upon notification
of the editors. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author
to represent all those involved with the work reported and to ensure
that the content of the manuscript and the list of authors meet with
their approval, both initially and through any subsequent changes.
If the editors learn that this is not the case the manuscript is not
processed further until all disagreements are resolved.
Authors may not present data and other results obtained by others as if
they were their own. Nor may authors incorporate without attribution
texts from the works of another author, even when summarizing past
results or background material. If a direct quotation is appropriate,
the quotation should be clearly indicated as such and the original
source should be properly cited. Papers that have been found to be in
violation of this rule will be rejected. In such cases, resubmission
of the manuscript, even with the plagiarized text removed, is not
ordinarily allowed. However, the Editors may allow exceptions to
this policy if warranted by special circumstances.
Although there is no limit to the length of regular articles,
the appropriate length depends on the information presented
in the paper. Authors are encouraged to refer in their paper to
internal reports or theses that contain more detail than the
published article or to deposit some of the material,
especially long tables, in the Electronic Physics Auxiliary Publication
Service (EPAPS) of the American Institute of Physics.
Files deposited in EPAPS are made freely available via ftp
and the World Wide Web. As an electronic service, EPAPS
can accommodate color-figure, multimedia, and program files.
Information about EPAPS is available via the APS Research Journals
home page at http://publish.aps.org/.
Authors should place their work in the context of the current
state of research, but they are not held responsible for
references to publications which had not yet appeared when their
paper was submitted. They are not responsible for references
to preprints, internal reports, results which have been
reported only orally at meetings (even though an abstract may
have been printed), nor for papers that have appeared in
publications not abstracted in standard abstracting journals. If
such work is called to the attention of the authors by a
referee, they are encouraged but not required to refer to it.
Authors are, of course, expected to include references to or
acknowledgments of material which has been used in their
work or which has influenced their work, even if this
material has not been published. Authors are expected to include
references to books and to published Conference
Proceedings if they contain more than abstracts.
Authors should be aware that attitudes toward the quotation
of results from preprints, Annual Reports, etc., are still
evolving. For example, many feel that any result from a
preprint, especially one made available electronically, can be
quoted without permission. Others feel that this is unethical,
in particular for detailed data and results. Therefore, it would
be prudent, to avoid unnecessary disputes as well as to avoid
quotation of results that may have changed, to obtain
permission of the authors of preprints and similar documents before
quoting detailed results.
Usually the Editors select one referee to review a manuscript.
Referee reports are advisory to the Editors, but are generally
transmitted by the Editors to the authors, and so should be
written in a collegial manner. The Editors may withhold or edit
these reports for cause. If in the judgment of the Editor a
paper is clearly unsuitable for Physical Review C, it will be
rejected without review; authors of such papers have the
same right to appeal as do other authors.
Authors may request that a particular person or that people at
a particular institution not be chosen as referees. We usually
honor such requests although we try to give authors whose
work is criticized in a manuscript an opportunity to respond
to the criticism. Authors may suggest a list of experts whom
they consider especially suited to referee their paper. Such a
list is particularly welcome when a manuscript treats a highly
specialized subject on which we rarely publish papers.
Authors may request that their identities not be revealed to
the referees ("double-blind" reviewing). If such a request is
made, it is the authors' responsibility to furnish a copy of the
manuscript without the authors' names, addresses, and the
acknowledgment section.
Any resubmittal should be accompanied by a summary of the
changes made, and a brief response to all recommendations
and criticisms. This material will normally
be forwarded to reviewers, and so should be written in a
collegial manner. Remarks that authors wish to address
solely to the Editors should be clearly identified and
separated from the summary and response.
If the authors conclude, after having made efforts to respond
to the criticisms of a referee, that they and the referee cannot
agree, they may request that the paper be sent to a second
referee. If the Editors agree to this request, the second referee
will be sent previous correspondence on the manuscript, but
not the identity of the first referee. Sometimes the Editors
decide to consult a second referee or a member of the
Editorial Board even if the authors do not request it.
Occasionally authors request that we accept a manuscript in
spite of the adverse comments of the referee. Since the
referees are chosen because of their familiarity with the subject
matter of the manuscript, they are usually better qualified
than the Editors to evaluate its scientific merits. The authors
must persuade the referee, not the Editors, that a paper
should be accepted. We do not publish manuscripts without a
favorable recommendation from a referee. However, the
Editors do not necessarily accept a referee's recommendation to
publish a manuscript. They may obtain the opinion of
another referee or a member of the Editorial Board in cases, for
example, where a referee has questioned important points in
the paper or has said that the quality of the work is poor or
marginal, or where questions of editorial policy have arisen.
After acceptance of a manuscript, if further information that
seems to warrant investigation is received by the Editors,
they will regard it as an obligation to reconsider their
decision, even if publication might then be delayed.
In some circumstances information about a manuscript considered
by Physical Review C and subsequently submitted to another
journal may be provided to the editor of that journal. Such
information might include the comments and identities of referees.
APPEAL PROCEDURES
Authors may appeal a rejection of their paper by the Editor.
In the case of a formal appeal, the paper and all relevant
information, including the identities of the referees, will be
sent to a member of the Editorial Board. The Board member
may review the case on the existing record or may seek
additional expert opinion. The Board member will present a
signed advisory opinion to the Editors.
If a Board member has provided a referee report on a paper
prior to appeal, another Board member must review the
paper on appeal. Authors may suggest those Board members
they feel are appropriate (or not appropriate) to conduct the
review. but the Editors are not bound by such suggestions. If
there is no suitable Board member available, the Editors may
appoint an appropriate scientist to consider a paper under
appeal as an ad hoc Board member.
The author of a paper that has been rejected subsequent to an
Editorial Board review may request that the case be reviewed
by the Editor-in-Chief of the APS. This request should be
addressed to the Editor, who will forward the entire file to
the Editor-in-Chief. Such an appeal must be based on the
fairness of the procedures followed, and must not be a
request for another scientific review. The question to be
answered in this review is: Did the paper receive a fair hearing?
The decision of the Editor-in-Chief concludes the
consideration of the manuscript by the American
Physical Society.
DATE OF RECEIPT
Each published paper carries a receipt date indicating when
the manuscript was first received by the Editor. If the authors
make substantive changes in a manuscript or if they hold it
for more than three months after it has been returned to them
with a referee's report, the paper will be given a "revised
manuscript received" date. In such cases, the authors may be
required to add references to material published since the
original submission of the manuscript. If the authors hold a
paper for more than six months after it has been returned to
them with a referee's report, the original paper is considered
withdrawn and the resubmitted version is considered to be a
new paper which must have up-to-date references. If the
authors do not return the proofs of a paper within three months,
the paper is likewise considered withdrawn, and is treated as
a new paper when the proofs are returned.
Papers which are transferred to Physical Review C from
Physical Review Letters or other Physical Review journals,
which are accepted for publication solely on the basis of
previous referee reports, and for which the authors have not
caused undue delays will retain the original receipt date. In
all other cases, a new receipt date which is the date of
transfer will be assigned. However, the authors may request that
the original receipt date be retained.
AUTHOR INQUIRIES
The Author Status Inquiry System provides information to
authors regarding the status of their manuscripts
automatically via electronic mail or the World Wide Web.
Authors may send
an electronic-mail message to status@aps.org using as the
subject line the manuscript code number followed by the last
name of the first author (for example, CD 1234 Jones). The
body of the message should be empty. Alternatively, the
system may be accessed via the Web URL http://
publish.aps.org/STATUS/status.html.
For papers that have been accepted for publication,
information about their status in the production process can be
obtained from AIP's Accepted Manuscript Status Inquiry
System (AMSIS) at the URL http://www.aip.org/msinq/status.html
the manuscript code of your paper (called ``editor code''
on AMSIS) and the last name of one of the first three authors.
Telephone inquiries regarding status are discouraged, since
the interruption of normal office procedures can cause
delays. In those cases when clarification of the information
from the Author Status Inquiry System is needed, send an
electronic mail message to prc@aps.org (with subject line,
for example, Status CD1234 Jones).
``It is the policy of the American Physical Society that the
Physical Review accept for publication those manuscripts
that significantly advance physics and have been found to be
scientifically sound, important to the field, and in
satisfactory form. The Society will implement this policy as
fairly and efficiently as possible and without regard to
national boundaries.''