Physical Review B is published by The American Physical Society, whose Council has the final responsibility for the journal. The APS Publications Oversight Committee and the Editor-in-Chief possess delegated responsibility for overall policy matters concerning all APS journals. The Editor of Physical Review B is responsible for the scientific content and other editorial matters relating to the journal.
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 B has an Editorial Board whose members
are listed on the inside front cover of the journal. Board
members are appointed for three-year terms upon
recommendation of the Editor, after consultation with the APS Divisions
of Condensed Matter and of Materials Physics.
Board members play an important role in the editorial
management of the journal. They advise on specific papers where
special assistance is called for, and participate in the formal
appeal process.
If a manuscript submitted to Physical Review B 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 application to physics are
generally not suitable for Physical Review B.
In general,
authors should keep review material to a minimum. Some
review and reprise of past work is acceptable if the paper can
be made more understandable and self-contained thereby.
Material previously published in preliminary form in a
Letters journal, as a Rapid Communication, or in a
conference proceedings can be the basis of a regular article in
Physical Review B, provided the article presents
considerably more results and details, enabling the reader to get a
substantially improved understanding of the subject.
Published conference proceedings are considered to be
publications and material from them should not be submitted for
publication to this journal except as noted above. Figures,
tables, or text material that have been previously published
should be referenced, not repeated. Exceptions can be made
only when warranted by unusual circumstances.
Publication of ongoing work in a series of papers should be
avoided. Instead, a single comprehensive article 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 information presented
in the paper. Authors may refer in their paper 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 Physics Auxiliary Publication
Service (PAPS) of the American Institute of Physics.
The new electronic counterpart, EPAPS, is similar, and accommodates
color-figure, multimedia, and program files.
Information about EPAPS can be obtained from the Editorial Office
on request, via ftp to aps.org in the /pub/jrnls directory as the
file epaps_up.asc, or via the APS Research Journals home page
at the World Wide Web URL http://publish.aps.org/.
New terminology should be introduced only when clearly
needed. Excessive use of acronyms should be avoided. The
proliferation of specialized jargon can serve to inhibit
communication. New terminology should be appropriate and, if
possible, convey to the reader an accurate impression of its
meaning. It should not be frivolous, hard to pronounce, or
based on a private joke. New terminology should not be
introduced in titles. Justification for the introduction of new
terminology should be provided on submission of the paper.
Authors should place their work in context with the current
state of the field, but they are not held responsible for
references to publications which had not yet appeared when their
paper was submitted to Physical Review B. They are not
responsible for references to eprints, preprints, internal reports, or
results which have been reported only orally at meetings
(even though an abstract may have been published). If such
work is called to the attention of the authors,
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
books and to published conference proceedings if they
contain more than abstracts. To assist editors and referees in
evaluating papers, authors should provide copies of any
unpublished manuscripts or published preliminary versions of
their own work that are relevant to the work under
consideration.
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.
It is the responsibility of the person submitting the paper to
ensure that all persons listed as authors approve of the
inclusion of their names.
For nearly all manuscripts, the Editor selects one or two
referees to review the paper. Authors are requested to justify
the need for publication in Physical Review B in a submittal
letter that can be forwarded to the referee(s). When referee
reports seem inconclusive, the Editor may consult another
referee(s). Additional referees are usually sent previous
correspondence, but not the identities of previous referees.
Referee reports are advisory to the Editor. As a matter of
practice, reports of referees are generally transmitted by the
Editor to the authors, but the Editor may withhold or edit
these reports for cause. If in the judgment of the Editor a
paper is clearly unsuitable for Physical Review B, it will be
rejected without review; authors of such papers have the
same right to appeal as do other authors. Special review
procedures for Comments are described in the section
concerning Short Papers.
If a manuscript is resubmitted, it is required that authors
respond fully to the referee reports that have been sent to
them by the Editor. Any resubmittal should be accompanied
by a summary of the changes made, and a brief response to
all recommendations and criticisms of the referee(s). This
material will normally be forwarded to reviewers. If the
authors wish to address some remarks solely to the editors,
these should be clearly identified and separated from the
summary and response.
As a matter of policy, it is the goal of the Editor to arrive at
a decision on publication in as short a time as is practical.
This allows papers that have been accepted to appear quickly
and gives the authors of those papers that have not been
accepted an opportunity to exercise other options with a
minimum of delay. In practical terms, this means that a
decision on the acceptability or otherwise of a paper can
normally be expected after no more than two rounds of
reviewing. Additional reviewing or initiation of the appeals process
should be reserved only for exceptional situations: extended
anonymous review cannot be used as a vehicle to develop an
otherwise unacceptable paper into an acceptable one. To
arrive at a final decision on a manuscript, the Editor may also
consult an Editorial Board member. (Board members are
generally informed of the identities of referees of papers on
which they are consulted. See also the section on Author
Appeals.)
Authors are encouraged to submit a list of experts whom
they consider especially suited to review their paper. Such a
list is particularly welcome when a manuscript treats a highly
specialized subject. The Editor is, of course, not constrained
to select a referee from that list. If there is a particular
individual(s) that authors prefer not be chosen as a referee, they
should so indicate and give reasons why. Although such
requests are usually honored it is customary to give authors
whose work is criticized in a manuscript an opportunity to
respond to the criticism.
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
acknowledgment section.
After acceptance of a manuscript, if further information that
seems to warrant investigation is received by the Editor, it
will be regarded as an obligation to reconsider the
acceptance decision.
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 Editor.
If a Board member has already provided a referee report on a
paper prior to appeal, another Board member will 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 is not bound by such suggestions. If
there is no suitable Board member available, the Editor 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.
Each paper, when published, carries a receipt date indicating
when the manuscript was first received by the Editor of
Physical Review B. If the authors make substantive changes
in a manuscript, the paper will also be given a "revised
manuscript received" date. If the authors hold a manuscript
an unusually long time after it has been returned to them
with a referee's report, the original paper is considered
withdrawn and the resubmitted manuscript is considered to be a
new paper, with a new receipt date.
Papers transferred from Physical Review Letters or other
Physical Review journals will be given a new received date,
which is the date of transfer. However, a paper that is
accepted without further review and has not been unduly
delayed by the authors in submission to Physical Review B or
by resubmitting it to the original journal may retain the
original received date. Consideration will be given to a request
that the original received date be retained.
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, BC1234 Jones). The
body of the message should be empty (no human will read
it). Alternatively, the system may be accessed via the Web
URL http://publish.aps.org/STATUS/status.html.
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 prb@aps.org (with subject line, for
example, Status BC1234 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.
Physical Review B publishes, in addition to regular articles
and errata, three types of short papers: Rapid
Communications, Brief Reports, and Comments. The same standards of
scientific quality apply as for regular articles. Each paper
must have an abstract. Short papers are limited to 4 printed
pages, although exceptions will be considered for
Comments.
The Rapid Communications section is intended for the
accelerated publication of important new results. Rapid
Communications are given priority in editorial processing and
production to minimize the time between receipt and
publication. The submittal letter is normally forwarded to the
referee(s), so it should be supplemented with an explanation of
why priority handling is needed.
Page proofs of Rapid Communications are sent to authors,
but, because of the rapid publication schedule, authors are
requested to transmit corrections by FAX, electronic mail, or
telephone within 24 hours of receipt.
A Brief Report is an account of completed research which
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 which criticize or correct
specific papers of other authors previously published in Physical
Review B. Each Comment should state clearly to which
paper it refers. The normal publication schedule is followed.
The reviewing procedure for Comments is usually as follows:
Errata are notices of errors or omissions in papers previously
published in Physical Review B. 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.