EDITORIAL POLICIES AND PRACTICES
(July 2007)
Physical Review Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams
(PRST-AB) 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-AB 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 European Physical Society Accelerators Group and the American Physical Society Division of
Physics of Beams form the Affiliated Professional Groups. They share
the responsibility for the health and vitality of Physical Review
Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams by providing advice and
encouraging scholarly publication in accelerator science and technology.
PRST-AB 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 Affiliated Professional 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
give input on the selection of referees and the identification of new
referees.
ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING
Physical Review Special Topics - Accelerators
and Beams 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 - Accelerators and Beams
deals with all aspects of accelerator science and technology. Papers
in PRST-AB are categorized into the following subsections:
- Low- and Intermediate-Energy Accelerators
- Pulsed-Power Accelerators, Technology, and Dynamics
- Synchrotron Radiation and Free-Electron Lasers
- High-Energy Accelerators and Colliders
- New Acceleration Techniques
- Radio Frequency Calculations and Technology
- Magnet Calculations and Technology
- Beam Control, Diagnostics, and Feedback
- Cryogenics and Vacuum Technology
- Other Accelerator Subsystems and Technologies
- Single-Particle Dynamics
- Low-Energy, Multiple-Particle Dynamics
- Relativistic, Multiple-Particle Dynamics
- Applications
- Review Articles
If a manuscript submitted to PRST-AB 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.
CONTENT OF ARTICLES
Physical Review Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams publishes
papers that either
- present new results in science and/or technology of accelerators and
beams, or
- review active areas of accelerator and particle beam research.
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.
Confirmation of previously published results of unusual importance can be considered as new, as can significant null results. 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.
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 Editor will be employed in determining the need to cite such work.
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.
Material previously published in
an abbreviated form (in a Letters journal, as a Rapid Communication,
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.
Reviews in PRST-AB should cover topics of particular interest to the
PRST-AB readership. Authors should consider submitting articles
that a broader audience would find valuable to
Reviews of Modern Physics.
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 - Accelerators and Beams
publishes Comments and Errata in addition to regular articles.
Comments are publications that criticize
or correct papers of other authors previously published in
PRST-AB. 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, one referee is 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-AB, 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, 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 - Accelerators and Beams 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 (usually by the Comment author and by the
"uninvolved" referee).
- 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.
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 - Accelerators and Beams.
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.
In those cases when clarification of the information from the
Author Status Inquiry System is needed, send an electronic mail
message to prstab@aps.org (with
subject line, for example, Status ZF12345 Jones).
The Editor welcomes suggestions from authors and referees regarding
improvements in editorial and refereeing procedures.
The Editor Physical
Review Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams
|