Substance: The paper must satisfy criteria of validity, importance, and
broad interest. The work must be sound, free of detectable error, and
presented in reasonable detail. The results must be new and not simply
a marginal extension of previously published work. Papers of broad interest
are those that report a substantial advance in a field of physics or have
significant implications across subfield boundaries. In summary,
Physical Review Letters publishes
papers that keep broadly interested physicists
well informed on vital current research.
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 estabilished experimental
results. Mathematical and computational papers that do not have
application to physics are generally not suitable for Physical
Review Letters.
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.
Presentation: The diversity of the readership of Physical Review Letters places
special demands on style. Each article must begin with one or
more introductory paragraphs that state, in language understandable to
the journal's broad readership, the issues it addresses and its primary
achievements.
Each paper should present as complete a discussion as possible within
the constraints of a short communication. When appropriate, a Letter
should be followed by a more extensive report elsewhere.
Papers must be clearly written,
with symbols defined, figures well drawn, and tables and figures
thoroughly captioned.
A Comment corrects or criticizes a previously published Letter in a significant
way. The opening paragraph of the Comment should clearly indicate the Letter to
which it is directed, and the point of the Comment. A Comment will be published
only if it is informative to
the readership and the same result cannot be achieved either by an erratum
or by a separate article in a journal. An author may not normally
publish a Comment on a Letter of which he or she is an author. Authors
are provided an opportunity to respond to submitted Comments. Comments
and Replies are subject to the refereeing process, and acceptance
of a Comment does not guarantee publication of an author's Reply.
Letters, Comments, and Replies must provide proper citations to pertinent
earlier work and credit significant contributions by nonauthors.
Submission to Physical Review Letters is a representation that the paper
is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. The author
submitting the paper shall have ensured that all persons
listed as authors approve the inclusion of their names.
Manuscripts may be submitted by conventional mail
or electronic mail. Submission of manuscripts by
facsimile (FAX) is not appropriate; in general, manuscript copies or
replacement pages from our
FAX machines are not suitable for use in the composition process.
A conventional paper manuscript must be double spaced to allow space for copyediting in the
event of publication, of reasonable type size to allow fast yet accurate viewing by keyboarders, and submitted in quadruplicate with good quality figures.
Original india-ink drawings or glossy photographs should be provided.
Xerographic copies are usually of insufficient quality to print acceptably;
computer-generated drawings are sometimes satisfactory, but not
automatically. See Information for Contributors
for more details. Useful forms and memos regarding manuscript
preparation and submission appear at the end of some issues of the
journal.
An electronic-mail submission should be sent to
the Internet address prltex@aps.org. For information about submission
via e-print servers or direct Web upload, consult the Web URL
http://publish.aps.org/ESUB/.
The computer file should be prepared in one of the acceptable formats;
REVTeX (preferred), LaTeX, Harvmac, Plain TeX; PostScript figures.d
If the paper
is accepted for publication, the file may be
converted to SGML and used to produce the text of the journal.
See the booklet,
PRL REVTeX Compuscript Program,
for further details on the electronic-submission
compuscript program. Inquiries may be made to the above address.
Manuscripts and figures are not
routinely returned to authors with correspondence. Authors
may request return of the manuscript and/or figures. For any resubmission,
please state whether or not the figures have been modified, and supply new
photoreproducible journal-quality figures if there have been such changes.
The Author Status Inquiry System provides information to authors regarding the
status of their manuscripts automatically via electronic mail or the World Wide
Web. The system
may be accessed via the Web URL http://publish.aps.org/STATUS/status.html.
Alternatively, 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, LM1234 Jones). The body of the message should be
empty (no human will read it).
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 prl@aps.org (with subject line, for example, Status LM1234 Jones).
Complimentary material associated with an article (e.g., data tables,
color image files, multimedia files) may be submitted
electronically for joint review.
If the article is published this material will be deposited in the
electronic Physics
Auxiliary Publication Service (EPAPS) of the American Institute of
Physics. 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
World Wide Web at the URL http://publish.aps.org/.
Upon receipt of a manuscript, the staff
makes an estimate of the length required for publication. If
the length is not excessive,
the paper is given to the appropriate editor who
chooses referees for the paper. (The editors divide responsibility
among themselves for the different areas of physics.) If the paper is
estimated to exceed 4 printed pages by more than 12% (an indication that necessary revisions might
seriously alter the content),
the paper is not sent for review, and a length estimate is sent to the authors.
The authors may make suitable changes and resubmit the manuscript.
Manuscripts which are too long by less than 12% are sent for review, but the
authors are advised that a shorter version will be required if the paper is
accepted for publication.
Letters. With few exceptions,
the editors cannot be sufficiently competent
in the special areas addressed by the submitted papers to decide on the
disposition of the papers themselves. They send papers to referees,
selected as representatives of the informed readership which the paper
addresses, for their counsel. Initially, most papers are sent to
two referees (sometimes one or three).
If in the judgment of the editors a paper is clearly unsuitable
for Physical Review Letters, it will be rejected
without review; authors of
such papers have the same right to appeal as do other authors.
The referees are chosen by the editor
from a continually updated list of over 36000 physicists selected
from the international community. At any instant 1900 or more referees are
reviewing papers for Physical Review Letters.
In a year more than 28000 referee reports are received from almost 10000
different referees concerning over 7700 new submissions and a comparable
number of resubmissions.
Physical Review Letters has an Editorial Board
(Divisional Associate Editors), whose members are
appointed for three-year terms by the Editor-in-Chief
upon recommendation of the editors after consultation
with APS divisions where appropriate. Board members
provide advice to the editors on editorial policy and on
specific papers as requested, and participate in the formal
appeals process (see section on Author Appeals).
Some Divisional Associate Editors, by individual arrangements with the
appropriate editor, offer to the editor referee suggestions and other
advice on newly submitted papers. In general,
the editors frequently consult the DAEs and other senior physicists
informally as needed, as well as by the formal review process.
Referees are requested to comment critically on the validity and importance
of the paper, and they are asked their opinion concerning the
degree of interest of the paper for the readers of Physical
Review Letters. (Consult the
Manuscript Referral form and
Advice to
Referees for details.) The editors also
appreciate any suggestions of the
referees directed toward improvements in style, grammar, completeness of
references, etc. Advice received from referees concerning the scientific
merits of a paper are considered very seriously; ordinarily, no paper which
receives important scientific criticism from a referee will be accepted
without further review. Although advice
from referees concerning the suitability
of the paper for the journal in terms of importance, broad interest, and
accessibility
is solicited and is vital, the editors do not
consider such counsel definitive and will weigh their own perceptions
of the paper and of the journal, and their understanding of the opinions
of the readers of the journal, in reaching their conclusions on
these aspects of acceptability.
Authors are encouraged to submit a list of scientists who they believe are
especially suited to referee their papers. Particularly if the paper addresses
an especially arcane or controversial subject or view, advice on the problems of
referee selection and a list (not too short) of qualified reviewers is welcome.
Of course, the editor is not obliged to select a name from that list.
Occasionally, conflicts of interest between referees and authors may be
considered to color the advice of the referees. Although the editors
attempt to avoid such conflicts in their choice of referees, they cannot
always be aware of such problems. An author who believes that
conflicts are possible may submit a list (not too long) of named physicists
with the request that they be excluded as referees, and the editors will
usually honor such a request.
On occasion,
the editors may feel it important that they obtain the views of an expert
who does have a known conflict of interest. In such cases, they will
take special steps to adjust for the possible bias.
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.
The referee is requested to send a critique within a
week of receipt; use of electronic mail or FAX is encouraged.
If a timely response is not received, a reminder message
is sent; we ask the referee to let us know by telephone or electronic means if
further delay is expected. If no response is received within a suitable
additional interval, the file is inspected by the editor. Often it is
appropriate to make a decision on the basis of information already at
hand. However, the editor may find that additional advice is needed, or
may decide (usually on the basis of contact with the referee)
that further delay is acceptable. Of course, the editors stop using
referees who are too often delinquent.
Upon receipt of the referees' reports, the editor evaluates them and
makes a decision concerning procedure. For a small proportion of papers,
the reports are convincing and favorable without caveats and the papers
are put into production immediately. (In order to maintain our fast
composition schedule, proofs are normally sent to authors via fax.)
Some papers are conditionally accepted upon
consideration by the authors of changes suggested by the referees and
endorsed by the editors. Most papers are not accepted at this stage;
the authors are asked to respond to the criticisms of the
referees. While the editors do not assume that the referees' views take
precedence over well considered arguments of the authors, and do not
require authors to make every change suggested by the referees, they do
consider that objections of referees constitute criticism by
recognized scholars who belong to the special set of experts addressed by
the paper, and they do demand that the author consider those criticisms
seriously.
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.
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.
When the manuscript is resubmitted after the first round
of referee reports, the editor may take any of a variety of actions.
Of course, the editor may find the authors' response and revisions
persuasive and therefore approve publication.
Usually, the editor concludes that further review is necessary, perhaps
by the prior referees, perhaps by different referees.
In an effort to minimize the time between initial submittal
of a manuscript and final disposition, the anonymous review process
will usually end with the reports received following the authors' first
resubmittal of the manuscript. Thus the editor will inform the authors either
that the manuscript will be published (possibly with minor revision) or
that it is inappropriate for publication in this journal. If the editor's negative
decision is not accepted and the authors again resubmit the manuscript,
the appeal process
will begin.
Although no precise definition of acceptability can be constructed, in
general the editor will accept only those papers for which there
appears to be evidence that a strong majority of interested and
competent readers conversant with the field of the paper would consider
that the paper is free of detectable error, important, interesting, and,
according to their lights, suitable for publication in Physical Review
Letters. Note that rejection does not necessarily imply that the
editors or their advisors have established that the paper is wrong,
unimportant, or uninteresting. Instead, rejection implies that the
authors have not established to the satisfaction of this jury that the
paper is credible, important, and interesting according to the particular standards
of Physical Review Letters.
Recently, fewer than 40% of submitted papers have been
finally accepted for publication in Physical Review Letters. This
is not an acceptance rate fixed by policy. It
reflects a consensus view of the community of reviewers (not editors)
of how much to publish.
In some circumstances information about a manuscript considered
by Physical Review Letters 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.
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.
Comments. In general,
each Comment is sent to an author of
the subject Letter and one (or more) of the following responses is requested:
(a) The Comment seems appropriate for publication without a Reply.
(b) A Reply to the Comment is submitted for possible simultaneous publication. (Submission of the Reply Comment later in the Comment review process may be
reserved as a future option instead.)
(c) The Comment does not seem sufficiently relevant to the Letter; a
detailed discussion is enclosed.
(d) The Comment does not appear to be scientifically valid; a detailed
discussion is enclosed.
The author of the Letter is not asked to review the Comment as an anonymous
referee. The editors will consult
an independent, anonymous referee if they deem it useful in determining the
suitability for publication of the Comment (and Reply, if any).
In any transmission, the Reply or the reaction of the author is not
treated anonymously.
Just as a Comment must be written in a collegial tone, must be
free from polemics, must be pertinent, and must be free from egregious
errors to be considered for publication, the Reply
must also conform to these requirements.
A Comment and Reply (if both are acceptable) must appear in the same issue.
The editors will not excessively delay the publication of a suitable Comment
because of the lack of an adequate Reply. Authors of a
Comment are encouraged to send their Comment first to the authors of the
Letter in question for a direct response, although the editors do not
require such a step. Reply Comments are shown to the authors of the Comment
prior to publication or when other need arises.
Substantial revision of a Comment in response to the Reply will usually be
interpreted by the editors as a sign that the Comment was misconceived, and
might be cause for rejection of the Comment.
Occasionally, a Letter will generate several quite similar Comments. In such
cases, the editors reserve the right to select a subset for publication.
Usually, some senior physicist conversant with the physics under discussion
will be asked for advice in such selection. In some cases, with
permission from the authors of the Comments that were not selected, the
editors will interject an editorial note stating that similar points were
brought up by other authors.
Errata. Errata are notices of errors or omissions in papers previously
published in Physical Review Letters. 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.
If a DAE has provided a referee report on a paper prior to
appeal, another DAE, or the Chairman of the DAEs, must review the
paper on appeal. Authors may suggest those DAEs 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
DAE available, the editors may appoint an appropriate scientist to
consider a paper under appeal as an ad hoc DAE.
The author of a paper that has been rejected subsequent to a
DAE review may request that the case be reviewed by the
Editor-in-Chief of The American Physical Society. This request
should be addressed to the Chairman of the DAEs, 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.
Importance of Introductory Paragraphs
Physical Review Letters is unique in its commitment to keep broadly
interested readers well informed on vital current research in all fields of
physics. This is achieved with introductory paragraphs that state, for
each article, the issues addressed and the primary achievements. It is
essential that these paragraphs be clearly written and comprehensible
to nonexperts. To assure compliance, the referees are instructed to pay
particular attention to the introductory section. In addition, the editors
will make an independent evaluation of the adequacy and clarity of the
introduction.Submittal of Manuscripts
Authors are advised to familiarize themselves with journal criteria and
standards before preparing a manuscript for submission. In particular,
consultation of the journal's
Advice to Referees and
Manuscript Referral form
is likely to be of assistance.Editorial Procedures
The following descriptions of
ordinary editorial practices are not meant as an exposition of rigid
rules - there are few rigid rules - but as an outline of usual practices,
presented with the view that some understanding of these procedures may
help authors and referees deal with the editors.Appeals
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 Divisional Associate Editor (DAE). The DAE may review the case on
the existing record or may seek additional expert opinion. The DAE
will present a signed advisory opinion to the editors.