PRST-PER: Editorial Policies and Practices
EDITORIAL POLICIES AND PRACTICES
(Revised July 2007)
Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research (PRST-PER) is
published by the American Physical Society (APS), the
Council of which has the final responsibility for the journal. The Publications
Oversight Committee of the APS and the Editor-in-Chief possess delegated responsibility
for overall policy matters concerning all APS journals. The Editor of PRST-PER
is responsible for the scientific content and 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.
The American Association of Physics Teachers and the American Physical Society
Forum on Education, by sponsoring the journal, share the responsibility for
the health and vitality of Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education
Research by providing financial support, advice, and encouraging original
research in physics education. PRST-PER has an Editorial Board
whose members are appointed for three-year terms by the Editor-in-Chief upon
recommendation of the Editor after consultation with the sponsoring groups.
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 provide input to help maintain the
high standards of the Physical Review.
ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING
Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research is completely
electronic with all steps including submission, refereeing, and publication
being done electronically. While this places some restrictions on the acceptable
forms of submission, it brings substantial advantages including free unrestricted
distribution, easy use of enhancements such as color figures, movies, etc.,
and hypertext links to references.
SUBJECT AREAS
Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research will cover
the full range of experimental and theoretical research on the teaching and/or
learning of physics. Review articles, replication studies, descriptions of the
development and use of new assessment tools, presentation of research techniques,
and methodology comparisons/critiques are welcomed.
CONTENT OF ARTICLES
Excluding review articles, the Physical Review and Physical Review Letters publish new results. Thus, prior publication of the same results generally will preclude consideration of a later paper.
Readers benefit from complete referencing, which is necessary to place any work in the context of the current state of research. Authors should therefore make every effort to ensure that their citations of previously published work are comprehensive at the time of submission. This includes references to books and to published conference proceedings that contain more than abstracts. Authors should also add to the references any works published during the course of the review process.
It may also be necessary for authors to cite unpublished work, such as e-prints, preprints, internal reports, or results which have been reported only orally at meetings (even though an abstract may have been published). Unpublished work that appears during the review process may require citation as well. Unpublished work has not been fully vetted by the community, and considerable judgment on the part of the editors will be employed in determining the need to cite such work.
Material previously published in an
abbreviated form (in a Letters journal or in a conference proceedings) may provide
a useful basis for a more detailed article in the Physical Review. Such an article
should present considerably more information and lead to a substantially improved
understanding of the subject. Reproduction of figures, tables, and text material
that have been published previously should be kept to a minimum and must be
properly referenced. In order to reproduce figures, tables, etc., from another
journal, authors must show that they have complied with the copyright requirements
of the publisher of the other journal. Publication of material in a thesis does
not preclude publication of appropriate parts of that material in the Physical
Review.
Review articles should review active areas of research in
a form that is useful to both practitioners and people entering the field. Authors
are asked to give considerable attention to the presentation of their material,
making introductions accessible to intermediate graduate students and readers
from other fields. The body of each paper should be economically and thoughtfully
organized.
For the practitioner, a review should present the current status
of a given topic. In addition to providing a historical background and a literature
survey, an ideal review should transcend a mere compilation of previous work.
It should examine critically the progress on the topic, identifying the most
successful methods and pointing out areas for future development.
In all cases, papers should be clearly written
in good scientific English, in a style consistent with that of the journal (see
General Information for Contributors). New
terminology should be introduced only when clearly needed and appropriate,
and it should not be introduced in titles. Excessive use of acronyms
is discouraged.
The appropriate length of an article
depends on the information presented, and there is no length limit. To enhance
conciseness, authors may refer to their own internal reports or theses
that contain more detail than the article, and to enhance readability
some material, especially long tables, may best be placed in appendices.
Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research publishes
Comments and Errata in addition to regular articles.
Comments are publications that criticize
or correct papers of other authors previously published in PRST-PER. 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 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.
When a Comment is published, bidirectional links are created connecting the
Comment, the article it comments on, and the Reply if any, so that users accessing
any of these documents can easily access the others.
The Errata section contains notices regarding errors or
omissions in papers previously published. Besides the standard Erratum,
several special categories of documents may appear in this section. In
the online journal, each of these documents involve bidirectional links
between the original article and the document in the Errata section. The
category of the corrective document is indicated in its title and in the
link from the original article.
The standard Erratum is a statement by the authors of the original paper
that briefly describes the correction(s) and, where appropriate, any effects
on the conclusions of the paper.
An Editorial Note is a statement by the journal about the paper that the
editors feel should be brought to the attention of readers of the article.
A Publisher's Note is a notice that the article has been corrected subsequent to publication. Such corrections are made to correct
typographical or production errors that involve significant metadata (such
as title or byline) or have a significant impact on the reader's ability to
understand the article. Such corrections are normally made only shortly
after publication, with approval of APS management, and are not made for
scientific errors or omissions. The Publisher's Note indicates the
correction and when it was made.
A Retraction is a notice that the paper should not be regarded as part of
the scientific literature. Possible reasons for this include, among
others, presentation of invalid results and inclusion of results that were
published previously by the same authors in substantially similar form. (In
the latter case, the prior publication, not the Retracted article, should be
regarded as the source of the information.) To protect the integrity of the
record, the retracted article is not removed from the online journal, but
notice of Retraction is given. Retractions are sometimes published by the
authors when they have discovered substantial scientific errors; in other
cases, the editors conclude that Retraction is appropriate. In all cases,
the Retraction indicates the reason for the action and who is responsible
for the decision. If a Retraction is made without the unanimous agreement
of the authors, the approval of the Editor-in-Chief of APS is required.
EDITORIAL PROCEDURES
The following is a description of the
usual procedure, but there can be exceptions to almost all the matters discussed
below.
Usually, two referees are selected by the Editor for each manuscript,
and papers are accepted for publication based on favorable recommendations by
the referee(s). Referee reports are advisory to the Editor, but are generally
transmitted by the Editor to the authors, and so should be written in a collegial
manner. The Editor may withhold or edit these reports for cause.
Any resubmittal
should be accompanied by a summary of 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. Authors should not send a version of the manuscript
marked to show the changes, as this can lead to confusion and delay in processing.
A manuscript may be 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.
There are some exceptions to the stated acceptance criterion
above:
- The Editor can and will seek additional opinions if in his judgment such
action seems called for. Every effort will be made to arrive at a decision on
disposition within a reasonable time.
- If in the judgment of the Editor a paper
is clearly unsuitable for PRST-PER, it will be rejected without external review. Authors
of such papers have the same right to appeal as other authors.
- If further information
that warrants investigation is received after acceptance of a manuscript, the
Editor will be obliged to reconsider the decision.
Authors should state whether the paper they submit has been previously considered for publication in any of the APS journals (Physical Review Letters, or other Physical Review journals, or Reviews of Modern Physics) and supply the code number assigned by that journal. They should also provide information about other recent relevant unpublished work of theirs (e.g., for a paper under consideration by an APS journal, supply the code number; for one submitted to another journal, provide the title; for a paper deposited on an e-print server, supply the e-print number).
When a manuscript has several authors, one of them, the corresponding author, should be designated to receive and respond to correspondence from the Editor. This designation can be changed upon notification of the Editor. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to represent all those involved with the work reported.
By submitting the manuscript, the corresponding author certifies:
- The paper represents original work of the listed authors.
- The manuscript as presented accurately reflects the scientific results.
- All of the authors made significant contributions to the concept, design, execution, or interpretation of the research study.
- All those who made significant contributions were offered the opportunity to be listed as authors.
- All of the listed authors are aware of and agree to the submission of this manuscript.
- The manuscript has not been published, and is not now and will not be under consideration by another journal while it is considered here.
- As part of the submission, the authors have provided any relevant information to the Editor (e.g., information about recent relevant unpublished manuscripts by the authors).
- The authors accept the established procedures for selecting manuscripts for publication.
Authors may not present data and other results obtained by others as if they were their
own. Nor may authors incorporate without attribution text from another work (by themselves or others), 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 Editor 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.
In some circumstances information about a manuscript considered by Physical
Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research 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:
- The paper is first sent to the author(s) whose work is being criticized. These
author(s) act as "identified" reviewers and should send a report
suitable for transmittal, over their names, to the author of the Comment. (This
report is not a formal Reply.)
- After suitable exchanges between the involved
parties, the Comment, along with relevant correspondence, is sent to an "uninvolved"
referee for anonymous review. If this referee recommends acceptance of the paper,
then the authors whose work is being commented on are given the opportunity
to write a Reply for possible simultaneous publication. This Reply will also
be reviewed but may not be accepted for publication.
- After the Comment and Reply have been accepted for publication, the author of the Comment is sent a copy
of the Reply for his or her information, but should not alter the Comment unless
requested to do so by the Editor. The Comment and Reply are usually published
in the same issue, with the Reply immediately following the Comment. If there
is undue delay in the preparation and review of the Reply, the Comment may be
published before the Reply. A Comment can be published without a Reply if the
Reply does not get accepted for publication.
AUTHOR APPEALS
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 an advisory opinion to the Editor, which will be sent to
the authors and/or referees with the Board member's name.
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 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 questions to be answered
in this review are: Were our procedures followed appropriately and did the paper receive a fair hearing? A decision by the
Editor-in-Chief is the final level of review.
RECEIPT DATES
Each paper, when published, carries a receipt date indicating when the manuscript
was first received by the Editor of Physical Review Special Topics - Physics
Education Research. 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.
AUTHOR INQUIRIES
The Author Status Inquiry System (ASIS)
provides information to authors regarding the status of their manuscripts automatically
via the World Wide Web at the URL http://publish.aps.org/STATUS/. 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 ASIS is needed, send an electronic mail message to prstper@aps.org
(with subject line, for example, Status YE12345 Jones).
For papers that have been accepted for publication and sent to production,
information about their status in the production process is available via a similar service maintained
by the production vendor. A link to this service is provided by ASIS for such
papers.
The Editor welcomes suggestions from authors and referees regarding
improvements in editorial and refereeing procedures.
The Editor
Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research
|