Editors’ Session
Manolis Antonoyiannakis Editor, Physical Review Le ers Ling Miao （缪凌） Editor, Physical Review X
Outline • Physical Review X • The editors’ point of view: • Editors’ role and challenges • What papers we are looking for • Some key ques ons in the field • Editorial standards: do they evolve? • Top-quality papers: fast-tracking, highligh ng • Unsuitable papers: editorial rejec on • Impact sta s cs Why PR High Profile Gold Open Access
Commercial Society NJP Nature Physics (good quality, well regarded) Nature Materials PRL P Nature Photonics R Nature AIP Advances Nanotechnology (For publica on: only technical correctness) Physical Review X • all areas of physics • highly selective standards: eXceptional in originality, quality & substance, significance • eXpress editorial/review process • well-informed, responsible editorial judgment • no length limit • online only; integrated multimedia • eXpanded access h p://prx.aps.org Highlighted in Physics Today
Physical Review X Editorial Board Broad, International, Distinguished
Marcela Carena, Theoretical particle physics Fermilab/University of Chicago To Learn More Visit PRX’s Website at http://prx.aps.org
The editors and the Editorial Board invite you to submit your eXceptional work to PRX The APS Editorial Office
• Editor in Chief : Research areas: Gene D. Sprouse Nuclear Physics Atomic Physics Stony Brook Univ.
• In-house editors: 42 (predominantly for PRL, PRB) • Remote editors (mostly ac ve researchers): 61 PRA, PRC, PRD, PRE, and RMP • Technical suppor ng staff: 100
37,000 papers A new submission (2011) every 3 office minutes The APS Editorial Office
• Editor in Chief : Research areas: Gene D. Sprouse Nuclear Physics Atomic Physics Stony Brook Univ.
• In-house editors: 42 (predominantly for PRL, PRB) • Remote editors (mostly ac ve researchers): 61 PRA, PRC, PRD, PRE, and RMP • Technical suppor ng staff: 100
37,000Every papers twoA new submission minutes someone(2011) citesevery 3 office minutes a PRL Editor’s Role: Assess & promote research quality • Help good papers get published on a mely basis • Filter clearly unsuitable papers by editorial rejec on & peer review • Help scien sts become skilled referees • Add value to papers: • Improve papers via editorial & peer review • Select the best papers to highlight: in Physics, or as Editors’ Sugges ons, etc. • But, editors: • Operate under serious me restric ons (eg PRL: 900 papers/year) • Limited exper se; must handle papers from several fields • Evolve into general, nonspecialist readers Let us know if you think we mishandled your paper 12 Challenges for Editors
• Influen al papers are frequently controversial • Experts’ judgments: not always faultless or perfectly objec ve • Editors’ own knowledge of field and people is limited • Editors’ me constraints (15 papers processed daily/editor) • Selec ve journals are subjec ve by defini on (41st Chair effect) • Interdisciplinary “cultural” barriers: What belongs in a physics journal? How to find referees for interdisciplinary papers? • Social, cultural factors affect behavior of authors & referees and thereby the fate of papers Experts’ judgments are not always faultless
Example: • In 50% of the top-20 cited papers in PRL (published in 1991-2000 in plasmonics, photonic crystals and nega ve refrac on) editors received conflic ng referee recommenda ons in 1st round or review Selec ve journals are subjec ve by necessity (41st Chair effect)
41st Chair effect: In any highly selec ve process, it is impossible to select all and only the‘best’ candidates
Robert Merton 41st Chair Effect “The French Academy decided early that only a cohort of 40 could qualify as members and so emerge as immortals. This limita on of numbers made inevitable, of course, the exclusion through the centuries of many talented individuals who have won their own immortality. The familiar list of occupants of this 41st chair includes Descartes, Pascal, Moliere, Bayle, Rousseau, Saint-Simon, Diderot, Stendhal, Flaubert, Zola, and Proust.
What holds for the French Academy holds in varying degree for every other ins tu on designed to iden fy and reward talent.” R. K. Merton, Science 159, 56, (1968) Developing an editorial philosophy
• Have intellectual humility and open-mindedness: Being aware of the limit of our knowledge and understanding Being open to the possibility of being wrong Accept that we make mistakes, but always learn from them
• Stay true to what really ma ers to physics research: i.e. being willing to: – Publish specific papers knowing they’ll be li le cited – Reject others while knowing they’ll likely be highly cited
• Never stop developing editorial judgment and acquiring professional knowledge What papers we are looking for We look for papers that:
Create a paradigm shi by thinking the ‘impossible’ (eg nega ve refrac on and superlens; cloaking)
Provide a frui ul analogy between fields (eg general rela vity – classical electromagne sm, via transforma on op cs)
Connect two previously isolated areas of physics in a nontrivial way (eg graphene + metamaterials)
Push a field into a new direc on (eg from op cs of invisibility to illusion op cs)
Advance the state-of-the art of a field (eg from cloaking in microwaves to cloaking of macroscopic objects for visible light)
Provide substan ve follow-up to important papers
People in the field should not miss, and people in related fields would be interested in
Crea vity & Innova on Quality & Substance Impact & Interest Some key ques ons & expected developments
Overcome losses, especially towards op cal frequencies Nonlinear metamaterials Light harves ng Func onality & tunability All-dielectric metamaterials at op cal wavelengths Broadband Metamaterial circuits (metatronics) Increased emphasis on experimental papers, novel applica ons & devices e.g. cloaking: a er a surge of theore cal proposals, the bar is higher now for theory
We also an cipate unexpected developments!
Editorial Standards Evolve
• When a field or topical area is new or emerging: - Ini al growth stage: - Flurry of papers, lots of ideas - Proposals, theore cal papers - Proof-of-principle experiments - ‘Easy’ results quickly a ained
• As a field or topical area matures: - Slower growth stage - Smaller ques ons, but also harder ones Top-quality papers: fast-tracking, highligh ng
2 reviews in 2 days accepted in 6 days h p://physics.aps.org Free to Read Highlighted papers are highly cited In 2009-2010:
154 papers in APS journals were selected for a Viewpoint in Physics: à 2011 ‘impact factor’ ~ 19
424 papers in PRL were selected for Editors’ Sugges ons: à 2011 ‘impact factor’ ~ 13
71 metamaterials papers in PRL à 2011 ‘impact factor’ ~ 13
Unsuitable papers: Editorial Rejec on • Editors assess a new paper: Does the paper meet the journal’s acceptance criteria?
• If no: Editors send an editorial rejec on le er
For Authors: Problems to Avoid For Editors: Red Flags for Editorial Rejec on
• Obvious marginal extension or incremental advance
• Problem solved or issues addressed too specialized (in par cular for PRL and PRX)
• Subject ma er or readership does not fit For Authors: Problems to Avoid For Editors: Red Flags for Editorial Rejec on
• Poor presenta on: - no compelling mo va on: Why was the work done? What open and important problem do you solve? - no punch line: What are the main message(s) or results? Why are they new & important? - too focused on technical details
Useful resources for authors (1) “Whitesides’ Group: Wri ng a Paper”, George M. Whitesides, Advanced Materials 16, 1375 (2004)
A classic paper on how to write scien fic papers that every researcher should read.
(2) “Wri ng a Scien fic Paper: One, Ideosyncra c, View.”, George M. Whitesides, 231st ACS Na onal Mee ng, Atlanta, GA, March 26-30, 2006 Follow-up talk on how to write a paper, with examples.
(3) “What Editors Want”, Lynn Worsham, The Chronicle of Higher Educa on, September 8, 2008 h p://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2008/09/2008090801c.htm
A journal editor reveals the most common mistakes academics make when they submit manuscripts. Check out workshops on authoring & refereeing
at the APS March and April Meetings 26 Editorially rejected manuscripts - PRL PRL Submissions Rejected Without External Review 3600 Rejected by PRL 3400 Resubmitted to PRL 28.6 3200 Published in PRL
3000 Percentage RWER shown for each year 24.9 2800 2600 21.5 19.6 2400 2200 18.7 19.0 2000 16.8 1800 1600 1400
Number of papers 1200 10.6 10.9 10.2 1000 10.4 9.5 800 600 400 200 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year of submission Acceptance rates Acceptance rates for Chinese papers in PRL: S ll below US & Europe… but gap is closing!
PRL Acceptance Rates, 1998-2000 vs. 2008-2010 50.0%
40.0% 37.4% 33.4% 29.5% 30.0%
20.0% Δ=30 Δ=19 10.5% PRL 10.0% 7.9% CN 0.0% '98-'00 '08-'10 % change -10.0%
-20.0% -21.1% -30.0% Cita on-based “impact measure” for physics papers from top ins tu ons in China: For APS journals, similar to US and European counterparts 'Impact Factor' 2011 (APS jnls only)
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0 HARVARD BERKELEY EPFL EP HKUST CN-8 NUS How do the editors select referees for a paper?
We look for referees in: • references (authors of, referees of) • related papers in Web of Science, SPIN, NASA, Google, APS database (authors, citing papers) • suggested referees • referee expertise in APS database • mental database
We generally avoid: • Coauthors (current or previous) • Referees at same institution as authors • Acknowledged persons • Direct competitors (if known) • Busy referees (currently reviewing for PR/PRL) • Overburdened referees (> 15 mss/past year) • Consistently slow referees (>8 weeks to review) • Referees who consistently provide poor reports 31 APS journals are strongly relying on expert input (majority of papers are reviewed) • 2011: 17,248 referees reviewed papers for Phys. Rev. Le ers • 60,000 Referees on our APS database • Each year, we select 150 Outstanding Referees • In this mee ng, we have some excellent referees: Roberto Merlin, John Pendry, Ping Sheng, Costas Soukoulis, Ele herios Economou, Ulf Leonhardt, JG de Abajo, Eli Yablonovitch, CT Chan, Ross McPhedran, Shanhui Fan Together, these 11 referees reviewed > 2,500 papers for APS! PRL Divisional Associate Editors (DAE’s): Costas Soukoulis, Roberto Merlin Impact Sta s cs
“My ques on is: Are we making an impact?” Appeal to all scien sts: Let’s quote Impact Factors to just ONE decimal digit please!
“I keep telling journal people that they should never even mention JIF beyond the first decimal place. I mean, to quote a JIF like "12.345" is ridiculous. Its JIF is "12.3"; why do you need these two extra digits? It gives a false idea of precision.”
Eugene Garfield Founder & Chairman Emeritus Institute for Scientific Information - now Thomson Reuters http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/
34 Large Journals cannot have high Impact Factors…
2011 Impact Factor 50 45 40 No physics journal that publishes: >1000 papers/year has a JIF>20 35 >200 papers/year has a JIF>40 30 Large impact factors are only possible 25 for small journals 20 15 10 PRL 5 PRB 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Papers published annually Large Journals cannot have high Impact Factors…
2011 Impact Factor 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 PRL + RMP together! IF 7.3 à 7.8 10 PRL 5 PRB 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Papers published annually Large Journals cannot have high Impact Factors…
2011 Impact Factor 50
45 RMP No physics journal that publishes: 40 >1000 papers/year has a JIF>20 >200 papers/year has a JIF>40 35 Nat Mat 23 physics journals with IF > 10 together make a ‘journal’ with an IF = 15 30 Large impact factors are only possible Nat Phot for SMALL journals 25 Physics Viewpoints 20 Nat Phys Adv Mat 15 PRL Sugges ons Nano L Adv Fun Mat 10 Small 5 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Papers published annually Most journals have a highly-cited subset
“Is PRL too large to have an ‘impact’?”, Antonoyiannakis & Mitra, PRL 102, 060001 (2009) Nobel Prize Winning Papers in Physical Reviews (*)
Decade Physics Chemistry
1970’s 1973 1976 1979
1980’s 1980 (1982) 1985 1988 (1989)
1990’s 1990 (1993, 1994) 1995 1997 1998 1998
2000’s (2001) 2002 2004 2005 (2006) 2007 2000
(2008) 2011 * Coun ng may not be complete As typified by the 2007 Nobel papers, highly cited papers often indicate their long-term citation potential early.
PRL 61, 2472 (1988)
PRB 39, 4828 (1989) Why the impact factor does not say it all: It is an average. Impact Factor = Average Citation Density
N #c(n) The IF is the number of citations citations2010 1 over a 2-year window, averaged IF2010 = = papers2008"9 N over the whole journal.!
The IF is the surface area of c(n), normalized to the total number of papers N! Not all papers ! ! are created equal! Journal Impact Factor: A robust metric of average behavior
R Adler, J Ewing and P Taylor, “Cita on Sta s cs”, Interna onal Mathema cal Union report, 2008 Introduce a new metric for the highly cited papers in a journal: S-index 2011 S index = maximum number S of papers, published in 2009-2010, cited more than S mes in 2011
H-index • • • • • • ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 today
S-index For a set of papers H-index: full publication window, full citation window S-index (for 2011): 2009-2010 publication window, 2011 citation window Ranking journals by the S-index S-index, 2010
Nature 94 Science 80 PNAS 51 PRL 50 JACS 49 Nano Le 43 Nat Mat 42 PRB 38 PRD 36 ApJ 36 Nat Nano 36 Nat Phys 31 RMP 31 Nat Phot 30 APL 28 Physics (Viewpoints) 27 PRA 20 NJP 20 PRC 19 JAP 17 PRE 15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Metamaterials papers in PRL
Cita ons of Metamaterials papers in PRL PY=2009-2010 CY=2011 70
60 50 71 papers ‘impact factor’ = 13 40 S = 17 C(S) = 502 30 Cita ons(n) 20
10
0 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 Rank n To sum up average performance significant performance indicator indicator ______ Reseacher citations/paper H-index Journal JIF S-index, C(S) ______ Ø Journal Impact Factors (JIF) are robust but average metrics Ø Journal size affects JIF strongly Ø S-index and C(S): • Track ’s i g n i fi c a n t ’ citation performance • Treat all citations with equal weight • Much less sensitive to journal size than JIF • Can be generalized for different fields • C(S) more sensitive & greater range than S-index Assessing researcher impact: Quan ty and Quality
Number of papers published (total no. papers)
Number of papers published in influen al journals (no. papers in journal XXX)
Cita ons of own papers (total cita ons, h-index, S-index, etc.)
Quality of cita ons of own papers (Eigenfactor, etc.) Assessing researcher impact: Quan ty and Quality
Branding of journals, and especially researchers, by a single quan ty is poor prac ce 谢谢!!! Ευχαριστούμε! For feedback, ques ons, etc., write to us at: Phys Rev X: Ling Miao, [email protected] Phys Rev Le : Manolis Antonoyiannakis, [email protected]