Editorial policy is guided by the following statement adopted
in April, 1995 by the Council of the APS:
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.
Physical Review E has an Editorial Board whose members
are listed on the inside front cover of the Journal. Board
members are appointed for three-year terms by the
Editor-in-Chief upon recommendation of the Editor, after consultation
with APS divisions where appropriate. Board members play an
important role in the editorial management of the Journal. They
lend advice on editorial policy and on specific papers for
which special assistance is needed, participate in the formal
appeals process (see section on Author Appeals), and give
input on the selection of referees and the identification of
new referees.
The subtitle of Physical Review E is Statistical Physics,
Plasmas, Fluids, and Related Interdisciplinary Topics. Papers in
PRE are categorized into the following nine subsections:
If a manuscript submitted to Physical Review E is on a topic not
within its 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 must contain new results in physics. Confirmation of
previously published results of unusual importance can be
considered as new, as can significant null results. 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 a clear application to physics are generally not
suitable for Physical Review E. In general, authors should
keep review material to a minimum. Even so, some review
and reprise of past work is appropriate if the paper can be
made more understandable and self-contained thereby.
Papers should be clearly written in good scientific English,
in a style consistent with that of the Journal.
Special attention should be paid to readability, so as
to render papers understandable to readers outside a narrow
specialty. (See Information for Contributors, following.)
New terminology should be introduced only when clearly
needed. It should be appropriate and, if possible, convey to
the reader an accurate impression of its meaning. New
terminology should not be frivolous, nor should it be
introduced in titles. Excessive use of acronyms is discouraged.
Publication of ongoing work in a series of papers should be
avoided. Instead, a single comprehensive article (perhaps
preceded by a Letter or Rapid Communication) should be
published. This policy against serial publication applies to
Rapid Communications and Brief Reports as well as to
regular articles.
Although there is no limit to the length of regular articles,
the appropriate length depends on the extent of the
information presented. To enhance conciseness, authors may refer
to their own internal reports or theses that contain more
detail than the published article or they may 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 context with the current
state of research, but they are not held responsible for
references to publications that had not yet appeared when their
paper was submitted. Authors are not held responsible for
references to preprints, internal reports, results that have
been reported only orally at meetings (even though an
abstract may have been printed), or 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, however, they are encouraged (but not required)
to refer to it. If revision of a manuscript takes a substantial
time (several months), the references should be updated to
include recently published relevant work. Authors are
expected to include references to relevant books and to
published conference proceedings that contain more than
abstracts.
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
author's responsibility to show that their proposal is likely to
stimulate research that might not otherwise be undertaken.
Material previously published in a Letters journal, as a
Rapid Communication, or in conference proceedings can be
the basis of an article in Physical Review E, provided the
submitted manuscript presents considerably more
information, enabling the reader to obtain a substantially improved
understanding of the subject. Figures, tables, and text
material that have been published previously should be
referenced, not repeated. Exceptions can be warranted by unusual
circumstances.
SHORT PAPERS
Physical Review E publishes Articles, Rapid
Communications, Brief Reports, and Comments. The scientific content
of all sections of the Journal is judged by the same criteria.
The sections are distinguished by the different purposes for
which the papers are intended.
Each paper must have an abstract. Short papers are limited to
four printed pages; exceptions will be considered for
Comments.
Rapid Communications in Physical Review are intended for
the accelerated publication of important new results, as are
Physical Review Letters. Authors may follow a Rapid
Communication (or a Letter) with a more complete account as a
regular article in Physical Review. The principal difference
between Physical Review Letters and Rapid
Communications is that Letters are aimed at a general audience of
physicists and allied scientists, while Rapid Communications are
primarily for a more specialized audience, i.e., the usual
readers of a particular Physical Review journal (A, B, C, D,
or E). Rapid Communications are given priority in editorial
processing and production to minimize the time between
receipt and publication. Therefore, authors should justify the
need for priority handling in their letter of submittal. A series
of Rapid Communications by one group on a particular
subject is discouraged.
A Brief Report is an account of completed research that
meets the usual Physical Review standards of scientific
quality but is not appropriate for a regular article (or for the
priority handling given to Rapid Communications).
Announcements of planned research, progress reports, and
preliminary results are generally not suitable for publication as
Brief Reports. The normal publication schedule is followed.
Comments are publications that criticize or correct papers of
other authors previously published in Physical Review E.
Each Comment should contain an abstract and should state
clearly the paper to which it refers. To be considered for
publication, a Comment must be written in a collegial tone
(free from polemics) and must be pertinent and without
egregious errors. A Reply to a Comment must also conform to
these requirements. Editorial procedures for processing
Comments are described in the following section.
Errata are notices of errors or omissions in papers
previously published in Physical Review E. 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.
Usually, one referee is selected by the Editor for each
manuscript there are exceptions, as with almost all procedural
matters discussed below. Referee reports are advisory to the
Editor(s),
but are generally transmitted by the Editor(s) to the authors,
and so should be written in a collegial manner. The Editor(s)
may withhold or edit these reports for cause.
As a matter of practice, reports of referees are
generally transmitted by the Editor(s) to the authors, but the
Editor(s) may withhold or edit these reports for cause. If in
the judgment of the Editor(s) a paper is clearly unsuitable for
Physical Review E, it will be rejected without review;
authors of such papers have the same right to appeal as do
other authors.
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 Editor(s)
should be clearly identified and separated from the
summary and response.
A manuscript maybe sent to additional referees if warranted,
either by request of the authors or by editorial decision. In
most cases the new referee will be provided with previous
correspondence on the manuscript, but not with the identity
of the previous referee(s). Editorial Board members,
however, may receive this information.
Since the referee is usually best qualified to judge a paper,
the author should direct his or her responses to the items
raised in the referee report. In general, very long rebuttal
letters explaining contentious points in a manuscript should
be avoided in favor of clarifying alterations in the manuscript
itself.
Papers are accepted for publication based on favorable
recommendations by the referee(s). On the other hand, the
Editors can and will seek additional opinions when in their
judgment such action seems called for. It is the policy of this
journal that every effort be made to arrive at a decision on
disposition within a reasonable time.
After acceptance of a manuscript, if further information that
seems to warrant investigation is received, the Editors will
regard it as an obligation to reconsider their decision,
Authors should state whether the paper they submit has been
previously considered for publication in another APS
journal (Physical Review Letters, other
Physical Review journals,
or Reviews Modern Physics).
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.
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.
Authors may request that particular individuals not be
chosen as referees. Such requests are usually honored, although
it is customary to give authors whose work is criticized in a
manuscript an opportunity to respond to the criticism.
Authors are welcome to submit a list of experts whom they
consider especially suited to referee their paper. Such a list is
particularly useful when a manuscript treats a highly
specialized subject on which papers are infrequently published. The
Editors, however, are not constrained to select a referee from
that list.
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.
In some circumstances information about a manuscript considered
by Physical Review E 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.
The reviewing procedure for Comments, papers that
criticize others' work, is usually as follows:
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 Editor(s) is (are) not bound by such
suggestions. If there is no suitable Board member available, the
Editor(s) 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.
RECEIPT DATES
Each paper, when published, carries a receipt date indicating
when the manuscript was first received by the Editors of
Physical Review E.
If authors make substantive changes in a manuscript or if
they hold it for an unusually long time after it has been
returned to them with a referee's report, the paper will be
given a "revised manuscript receipt date." In such cases, the
authors may be required to revise references to include
material published since the original submission of the
manuscript. In cases of especially lengthy delays the original paper
is considered withdrawn, and the resubmitted version is
considered to be a new paper and is given a new receipt date.
Papers transferred from Physical Review Letters or other
Physical Review journals that are accepted without further
review (and are not delayed unduly by the authors) will
retain the original receipt date. In other cases a new receipt
date, which is the date of transfer, will generally be given.
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, EF1234 Jones). The
body of the message should be empty (no human will read
it). Alternatively, the system may be accessed via the Web
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 pre@aps.org (with subject line, for
example, Status EF1234 Jones).
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.
You will need the accession code of your paper (called ``editor
code'' on AMSIS) and the last name of one of the first three
authors.
The Editors welcome suggestions from authors and referees
regarding improvements in editorial and refereeing
procedures.
The Editors of Physical Review E
AUTHOR APPEALS
Authors may appeal a rejection of their paper by the
Editor(s). 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 Editor(s).
URL http://publish.aps.org/STATUS/status.html.