Secrets of PRL Robert Garisto, Editor @RobertGaristo Japan September 2018 APS/JPS Joint Symposium celebrating the 60th anniversary of Physical Review Letters Japanese Physical Society Autumn Meeting at Shinshu University September 15, 2018, from 13:30 to 17:10, room S10 Physical Review Letters is celebrating its 60th anniversary. Over the years, PRL has become truly global, and the Japanese physics community has contributed many noteworthy papers. This special symposium celebrates PRL’s 還暦 and pays tribute to papers published by Japanese physicists. The selected talks refect the diversity and quality of the physics PRL publishes. We hope you will enjoy them and come celebrate with us! Program: 13:30-14:00 Robert Garisto (Editor, Physical Review Letters) 60 years of PRL: Looking back and forward 14:00-14:25 Shoji Torii (Waseda University) The Calorimetric Electron Telescope (CALET) Experiment on the International Space Station 14:25-14:50 Tom Melia (Kavli-IPMU, University of Tokyo) Lovely phase space 14:50-15:15 Takahiro Kawabata (Osaka University) Nuclear experimental approach toward the nucleosynthesis in the universe 15:15-15:30 Break 15:30-15:55 Kyo Tsukada (ELPH, Tohoku University) The SCRIT electron scattering facility: Toward the world’s frst study of unstable nuclei by electron scattering 15:55-16:20 Masato Takita (ICRR, University of Tokyo) Observation of high-energy cosmic rays with the Tibet air shower array 16:20-16:45 Kenkichi Miyabayashi (Nara Women’s University) From CP violation to XYZ particles 16:45-17:10 Atsuko Ichikawa (Kyoto University) Quest for CP violation in neutrino oscillation Outline • Physical Review Family • Statistics • How PRL Works • PRL Standards • Highlighting Papers • Journal Metrics • Publication Enhancements PhySH • Open Access • Lessons from Correspondence • LIGO! Physical Review Family end The American Physical Society • The Physical Review journals • physics.aps.org: Viewpoints, Focus, Synopses • Media Outreach (e.g. Tip Sheet) • Conferences • Prizes & Awards • Divisions, Topical Groups & Forums • Public Advocacy (e.g. Climate Change, Diversity) • Education • Careers • Global Cooperation (e.g. International Research Travel Award Program) The Physical Review Family 1970 PR splits into ABCD 1893 1993 1958 PRL 1913 APS takes over Physical Review 1998 PRST-PERPR AB 2005 PRPRST-AB PER 2008 Physics 2011 PRX 2016 PR Fluids 2014 PR Applied 2017 PR Materials Sections: General Physics: Statistical & Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Info Gravitation and Astrophysics Elementary Particles and Fields Nuclear Physics Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics Nonlinear Dynamics, Fluid Dynamics, Classical Optics Plasma and Beam Physics Condensed Matter: Structure Condensed Matter: Electronic Properties Polymer, Soft Matter, Biological, & Interdisciplinary Physics PRL Editors & Associate Editors: 13 full time, 8 part time Physical Review Letters seeks an Assistant Editor Physical Review Letters seeks a dynamic and personable member for its team of editors. The primary responsibility is to manage the peer review process and decide which papers meet PRL criteria and merit publication. A PhD in physics or a closely related field and postdoctoral research experience are required. We have a preference for someone with experience in soft matter and quantum or classical statistical physics. An excellent command of written and spoken English is essential. We will train the new editor to develop needed editorial skills. Statistics end Physical Review Letters 2017 Japan Published Receipts 26% 3% 5% 1% Japan 8% 32% 1% 2% 7% 3% 2% 17% 1% 4% 33% 4% 47% 4% #Letters published from Japan 1980-2017: 5449 U. S. & Canada L. America Europe M. East & Africa Indian Subcontinent Pacific-Asia China Japan S. Korea Physical Review Letters Referees Used for Published Articles S. Korea 1% China 3% Japan 5% Asia-Pacific 3% U.S. & Canada Indian Subcontinent 1% 36% M. East & Africa 2% L. America 2% 2017 Europe 48% Referee for us? If • you have submitted at least 3 papers to our journals • at least 60% of them have been accepted • you think you would make a good referee then please send a message to [email protected] with your full name, ORCID ID if you have one, contact information, and a brief list of your areas of expertise. How PRL Works end Roles in the Review Process Coauthor Author Coauthor Referee Ref A ~30% Editor Informal Ref Ref DAE Editor Ref B Ref C next Congratulations, you’re in good company! The Nobel Prize in Physics 2015 Takaaki Kajita Arthur B. McDonald LIGO! The Nobel Prize in Physics 2017 Rai Weiss Barry Barish Kip Thorne READERS’ FORUM Commentary How gravitational waves went from a whisper to a shout n 11 February 2016, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational- Wave Observatory (LIGO) and its sister collaboration, Virgo, O announced their earthshaking observation of Albert Einstein’s ripples in spacetime. LIGO had seen the death dance of a pair of massive black holes. As the behemoths circled each other faster and faster, the frequency and amplitude of the spacetime waves they produced grew into a crescendo as the black holes became one. Then the new doubly massive black hole began to ring so!er and so!er like a quieting bell. The escalating chirp and ringdown is also a metaphor for public information flow about the discovery. It could have unfolded differently. When scientists make a discovery, Had LIGO just confirmed a 100-year- ilar reasons, the discovery was referred they must choose how to disseminate it. old prediction made by Einstein? Had to as “The Event.” A big decision they must make is they discovered the first black hole bi- Big Paper on The Event arrived at whether to reveal the results before or nary? Had they opened a new era of PRL on the evening of 21 January 2016, a!er peer review. Reveal before peer re- astrophysics? With the stakes so high, and we immediately sent it out to experts view—sometimes even before the paper the collaborators wanted to keep their re- for anonymous peer review. The refer- is wri"en—and the community can use sults secret while they determined if the ees, like everyone involved, were sworn the results right away, but there is an in- results were real. It was unfortunate that to secrecy. Informed, unbiased advice is creased risk that problems will be found some onlookers chose to publicize vague central to picking which papers are pub- in a very public way. Reveal a!er peer re- rumors when the internal ve"ing had lished and to improving those that are. view, and the chance of such problems de- just begun. In this case it was clear that the paper creases, but there is more time for a com- By early December the collaboration was important and interesting enough petitor to announce first or for rumors to was convinced that the results were real, for PRL. As expected, the reviews were leak. At Physical Review Le!ers (PRL), where and LIGO spokesperson Gabriela “Gaby” very favorable and conveyed the mes- I am an editor, we allow authors to choose González let me know that we would be sage that the paper would be an inspira- when they want to reveal their results. receiving a paper from the group in mid- tion to physicists and astronomers alike. The LIGO collaborators chose to wait. to late January. When she told me that As the time for the announcement Just before LIGO’s experimental run they had convincingly observed gravita- drew closer, the rumors increased. In one began in September 2015, the team held tional waves, that it was not a test, and case, a preprint was spo"ed on a printer, a vote on which journal they would pick that the source was the merger of two then a physicist emailed his whole de- if they made a discovery. They picked huge black holes, my jaw dropped. partment about the results, one tweet PRL. Five days a!er the vote, LIGO’s de- Gaby stressed LIGO’s desire for strict quoted the email, and a science reporter tectors seemed to hear the universe sing confidentiality, so for a month I told based an entire story on that tweet. The out for the first time. only one other person in the world: my information was incomplete, though fellow editor Abhishek Agarwal. By correct—except for the journal where the mid-January we had to bring others paper would be published. That reporter Letters and commentary are encouraged into the loop to prepare for the paper’s learned at the press conference that PRL CONTACT and should be sent by email to [email protected] (using your surname arrival, to review it, and eventually to would publish the paper and sheepishly PHYSICS as the Subject line), or by standard mail publish it. To avoid information slip- congratulated me. to Letters, PHYSICS TODAY, American ping out from a casual conversation or Meanwhile, we continued to protect TODAY Center for Physics, One Physics Ellipse, a glance at a screen, we used the code the information from leaking. My son, College Park, MD 20740-3842. Please name “Big Paper.” (The code name for who is a budding science reporter, texted include your name, work affiliation, mailing address, email address, and daytime phone number on your letter and the second LIGO, announced in June, me a few days before the announcement, attachments. You can also contact us online at discovery was “Big Two.”) To the best of asking if I’d seen the rumors. That led to http://contact.physicstoday.org. We reserve the right to my knowledge no information leaked an awkward phone call—I still couldn’t edit submissions. from us. Inside the LIGO team, for sim- tell him about the discovery. When we 10 PHYSICS TODAY | AUGUST 2016 Reuse of AIP Publishing content is subject to the terms at: https://publishing.aip.org/authors/rights-and-permissions.