editorial Leave to appeal We can publish only a small fraction of the papers that are submitted to Nature Physics. If you think we’ve got it wrong in declining your work, what should you do about it?
No one who submits their work to The overwhelming majority of make. But different works inevitably have Nature Physics does so unless they believe submissions — more than 70% — are different strengths and weaknesses, and each it to be groundbreaking and therefore declined without external review. Although submission must be assessed on its own deserving of a place in the journal. We are deciding whether or not a paper deserves merits. Moreover, the editorial criteria we grateful for the consistently high quality to be published in Nature Physics is never apply to the papers in any given field will of manuscripts we receive; regrettably, easy, such decisions are the prerogative of its inevitably change as the field progresses. We however, we can only publish around 10% of editors. The argument that experts are likely must also find the right balance between the them. We never make a decision lightly, but to be impressed by a work is not sufficient papers we publish on ‘hot topics’ and those try to ensure that we have understood the grounds for appeal. from the many other areas that are the remit contribution and context of each and every For those papers that are sent to review, we of this journal. paper that is submitted. If we’ve declined do not ask referees to say whether or not they The likelihood that a submission will be your paper, we’ve done so for a reason. think that a paper belongs in Nature Physics. highly cited is also not a sufficient reason for But we don’t always get it right. So Instead, we ask them to tell us specifically it to be published in Nature Physics. We are, of we are always prepared to reconsider what they feel to be the paper’s contribution, course, pleased when the papers we publish any decision. If you feel that we have and what its significance might be. Based on are cited. However, many of the papers that misjudged your work, send an e-mail (to these comments and our own editorial criteria we are proudest to have published are not the [email protected]) explaining the we decide whether publication in Nature most cited; a high number of rapid citations is key reasons why you feel that your work has Physics is appropriate. Certainly, we do not no guarantee of a paper’s long-term impact or been misjudged — but before you do, there base our decisions on a simple ‘show of hands’. fundamental importance. are a number of things to consider. Similarly, a paper should at the very least Nature Physics aims to publish the most We can reverse a decision only if it excite the experts in the field. If a paper important advances in fundamental physics becomes clear that we, or our referees, elicits only a lukewarm response from our and technological potential. We strive have overlooked or misconstrued specific referees we are unlikely to be persuaded that to ensure that every decision we make is scientific issues related to the work in it belongs in Nature Physics, rather than in a based on a thorough understanding of the question, or if implications are pointed out more topical or specialist journal, even if their contribution and context of the papers we that were not already apparent from the comments were otherwise generally positive. receive. We do ask our authors to consider manuscript itself. And we will do so only Comparisons to previous papers that whether there truly are compelling grounds if the grounds for appeal are compelling: have appeared in Nature Physics or elsewhere to appeal against the decision we have made, in practice, this is true only in a minority are rarely helpful. Of course we make every but when it is clear we have made a mistake of cases. effort to be consistent in the decisions we we appreciate the opportunity to correct it. ❐
Where credit is due
The 2010 Wolf Prize in Physics acknowledges research into the foundations of quantum mechanics.
Since 1978, the Wolf Prizes have been Clauser, Aspect and Zeilinger were cited at foundational basis for quantum mechanics awarded in mathematics, physics, last month’s ceremony for “their fundamental hadn’t been long since laid. But these three, chemistry, agriculture, medicine and conceptual and experimental contributions building on work by John Bell, showed that arts, “to outstanding scientists and to the foundations of quantum physics, important foundational issues remained. artists — irrespective of nationality, specifically an increasingly sophisticated Their progress, against the prevailing race, colour, religion, sex or political views — series of tests of Bell’s inequalities or attitude of the time, didn’t come without for achievements in the interest of mankind extensions thereof using entangled quantum sacrifice. John Clauser — one of the first to and friendly relations among peoples”. The states”. Their work has established a good part realize the full implications of Bell’s work 2010 winners in physics are John Clauser, of what we now call quantum information and to conduct experiments in the field — Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger. It brings a science. But to see it as a ‘quantum never gained a permanent position in this purse of $100,000, but also the prestige of one information prize’ would be to miss the point. fledgling field of physics. At last his seminal of the most important science prizes after the Rather, it acknowledges the roots of that now- work is recognized, and his inclusion in this Nobel Prize — indeed, it can be an indicator thriving field in what was, for a long time, a award is to be applauded. for the latter: 14 out of the previous 45 shadowy corner of physics. There is always a risk that awards and recipients of the Wolf Prize in Physics went When Clauser, Aspect and Zeilinger recognition may distort the historical record. on to Nobel laureateship. set to work, it was unclear whether the But they may also serve to set it straight. ❐ nature physics | VOL 6 | JUNE 2010 | www.nature.com/naturephysics 395
© 2010 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved correction An incorrect version of the Editorial ‘Where credit is due’ went to press, but the text has been rectified for the HTML and PDF versions.