Physical Review D 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 Editors of Physical Review D are 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 D 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 Editors after consultation with the APS
Divisions of Particles and Fields and of Astrophysics. Board
members play an important role in the editorial management
of the journal. They assist in selecting referees, in identifying
new referees, in advising on specific papers where special
assistance is called for, and by participating in the formal
appeal process.
The first-of-the-month issue (D1) is subtitled "Particles and
Fields." The fifteenth-of-the-month issue (D15) is subtitled
"Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology."
Physical Review D1 generally covers experimental particle
physics and phenomenologically oriented theory of particles
and fields. Physical Review D15 covers more formally
oriented theory of particles and fields, gravitation, cosmology,
and allied areas. (More detailed information follows.)
Authors are welcome to indicate an issue preference for papers
on borderline subject matter.
The first-of-the-month issue includes papers on subjects such
as the following: experimental particle physics (and
experiments in other areas of physics whose results are relevant to
particles and fields); cosmic-ray physics; phenomenology of
collisions; decays, masses, and other properties of particles;
electroweak interactions; applications of quantum
chromodynamics; development and application of more
phenomenological approaches to strong interactions; development and
application of specific realistic or semirealistic models
beyond the standard model; other theoretical developments of
phenomenological interest; lattice gauge theory.
The fifteenth-of-the-month issue includes papers on subjects
such as the following: general relativity; supergravity;
quantum theory of gravitation; cosmology; astrophysics
relating to cosmology and particle
physics; formal aspects of theory of particles and fields; general
and formal developments in gauge field theories, including
quantum chromodynamics, grand unified theories: string
theory; quantum electrodynamics.
If a manuscript submitted to Physical Review D 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 D.
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 a Letters journal, as a Rapid
Communication, or in a conference proceedings can be the
basis of a regular article in Physical Review D, provided the
article presents considerably more information, enabling the
reader to get a substantially improved understanding of the
subject. Figures, tables, or text material that have been
previously published should be referenced, not repeated.
Exceptions can be made 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 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/.
The proliferation of specialized jargon can serve to inhibit
communication. Excessive use of acronyms should be
avoided. New terminology should be introduced only when
clearly needed. 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.
Authors should place their work in context with 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, or results which have been
reported only orally at meetings (even though an abstract may
have been printed). If such work is called to the attention of
the authors by a referee, 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.
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 or feasibility studies.
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 Editors select one or two
referees to review the paper, sometimes with advice from the
Editorial Board. When referee reports seem inconclusive, the
Editors 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
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
judgement of the Editors a paper is clearly unsuitable for
Physical Review D, 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 Editors. 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.
As a matter of policy, it is the goal of
the Editors 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 Editors 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 may 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 Editors are, 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 Editors,
they will regard it as an obligation to reconsider their
decision.
In some circumstances information about a manuscript considered
by Physical Review D 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.
Authors may appeal a rejection of their paper by the Editors.
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.
Each paper, when published, carries a receipt date indicating
when the manuscript was first received by the Editors of
Physical Review D. 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 which are accepted without further
review (and if the authors have not caused undue delays) will
retain the original received date. In other cases a new
received date, which is the date of transfer, will generally be
given. However, the authors may 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, DE1234 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 prd@aps.org (with subject line, for
example, Status DE1234 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 D publishes Articles, Rapid
Communications, Brief Reports, and Comments. Except for Articles,
these are limited in length. Each paper must have an abstract.
Announcements of planned research and progress reports are
not suitable for publication. A series of short papers by the
same authors on a particular subject is discouraged; a
comprehensive single regular article is preferred. Authors may
follow a Rapid Communication with the subsequent
submission of a longer version of the same work, but significant
additional material must be included. Neither Articles nor
Brief Reports should be followed by such expanded articles.
Articles in the Physical Review may be short; there is no
minimum length limit.
Rapid Communications are intended for important new
results which deserve accelerated publication, and are therefore
given priority in editorial processing and production to
minimize the time between receipt and publication. Rapid
Communications are similar to Physical Review Letters; the
principal difference is that Letters are accessible to a general
audience of physicists and allied scientists, while Rapid
Communications are primarily for a more specialized
audience, the usual readers of Physical Review D. Rapid
Communications in Physical Review D are limited to five printed
pages.
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. The publication of
Rapid Communications is generally not delayed for receipt
of corrections unless requested by the author.
Brief Reports are accounts of completed research which do
not warrant regular Articles or the priority handling given to
Rapid Communications; however, the same standards of
scientific quality apply. (Addenda are included in Brief
Reports.) Brief Reports are limited to four printed pages. The
normal publication schedule is followed.
Comments are publications that criticize or correct specific
papers of other authors previously published in Physical
Review D. Each Comment should state clearly to which
paper it refers and should not contain polemics. Comments are
limited to four printed pages. 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 D. 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.