PHYSICAL REVIEW E EDITORIAL POLICIES and PRACTICES ͑Revised July 2001͒

PHYSICAL REVIEW E EDITORIAL POLICIES AND PRACTICES ͑Revised July 2001͒

Physical Review E is published by The American Physical Part 2: Chaos, Hydrodynamics, Plasmas, and Related Topics Society ͑APS͒, the Council of which has the ®nal responsi- ͑10͒ General methods of statistical physics bility for the Journal. The Publications Oversight Committee ͑11͒ Chaos and pattern formation of the APS and the Editor-in-Chief possess delegated respon- ͑12͒ Nonlinear hydrodynamics and turbulence sibility for overall policy matters concerning all APS jour- ͑13͒ Plasma physics nals. The Editor of Physical Review E is responsible for the ͑14͒ Physics of beams scienti®c content and editorial matters relating to the journal. ͑15͒ Classical physics, including nonlinear media and In this the Editor is assisted by the Journal's associate and photonic materials assistant editors. ͑16͒ Computational physics

If a manuscript submitted to Physical Review E is on a topic Editorial policy is guided by the following statement adopted not within its purview, but may be suitable for another in April, 1995 by the Council of the APS: Physical Review journal, the Editors will transfer the paper to the appropriate journal and inform the author͑s͒ of that transfer. It is the policy of The American Physical Society that the Physical Review accept for publication those manuscripts that signi®cantly advance physics and have CONTENT OF ARTICLES been found to be scienti®cally sound, important to the ®eld, and in satisfactory form. The Society will imple- Papers must contain new results in physics. Con®rmation of ment this policy as fairly and ef®ciently as possible previously published results of unusual importance can be and without regard to national boundaries. considered as new, as can signi®cant null results. Papers ad- vancing new theoretical views on fundamental principles or Physical Review E has an Editorial Board whose members theories must contain convincing arguments that the new are appointed for three-year terms by the Editor-in-Chief predictions and interpretations are distinguishable from ex- upon recommendation of the Editor, after consultation with isting knowledge, at least in principle, and do not contradict APS divisions where appropriate. Board members play an established experimental results. Mathematical and computa- important role in the editorial management of the Journal. tional papers that do not have application to physics are gen- They lend advice on editorial policy and on speci®c papers erally not suitable for Physical Review E. In general, authors for which special assistance is needed, participate in the for- should keep review material to a minimum. Even so, some mal appeals process ͑see section on Author Appeals͒, and review and reprise of past work is appropriate if the paper give input on the selection of referees and the identi®cation can be made more understandable and self-contained of new referees. thereby. Papers should be clearly written in good scienti®c English, SUBJECT AREAS in a style consistent with that of the Journal. Special attention should be paid to readability, so as to render papers under- The subtitle of Physical Review E is Statistical, Nonlinear, standable to readers outside a narrow specialty. ͑See Infor- and Soft Matter Physics. PRE has two parts and sixteen sub- mation for Contributors, following.͒ sections: New terminology should be introduced only when clearly Part 1: Soft Matter and Biological Physics needed. It should be appropriate and, if possible, convey to ͑1͒ Statistical physics of soft matter the reader an accurate impression of its meaning. New ter- ͑2͒ Equilibrium and linear transport properties of minology should not be frivolous, nor should it be intro- ¯uids duced in titles. Excessive use of acronyms is discouraged. ͑3͒ Granular materials ͑4͒ Colloidal dispersions, suspensions, and aggregates Publication of ongoing work in a series of papers should be ͑5͒ Structured and complex ¯uids avoided. Instead, a single comprehensive article ͑perhaps ͑6͒ Films, interfaces, and crystal growth preceded by a Letter or Rapid Communication͒ should be ͑7͒ Liquid crystals published. This policy against serial publication applies to ͑8͒ Polymers Rapid Communications and Brief Reports as well as to regu- ͑9͒ Biological Physics lar articles.

viii Although there is no limit to the length of regular articles, four printed pages; exceptions will be considered for Com- the appropriate length depends on the information pre- ments. sented in the paper. Authors may refer in their paper to their own internal reports or theses that contain more detail than Rapid Communications in Physical Review are intended for the published article or they may deposit some of the mate- the accelerated publication of important new results, as are rial, especially long tables, in the Electronic Physics Auxil- Physical Review Letters. Authors may follow a Rapid Com- iary Publication Service „EPAPS… of the American Insti- munication ͑or a Letter͒ with a more complete account as a tute of Physics. Files deposited in EPAPS are made freely regular article in Physical Review. The principal difference available via ftp and the World Wide Web. As an electronic between Physical Review Letters and Rapid Communica- service, EPAPS can accommodate color-®gure, multimedia, tions is that Letters are aimed at a general audience of physi- and program ®les. Information about EPAPS is cists and allied scientists, while Rapid Communications are available via the APS Research Journals home page at primarily for a more specialized audience, i.e., the usual http://publish.aps.org/. readers of a particular Physical Review journal ͑A, B, C, D, or E͒. Rapid Communications are given priority in editorial Authors should place their work in context with the current processing and production to minimize the time between re- state of research, but they are not held responsible for ref- ceipt and publication. Therefore, authors should justify the erences to publications that had not yet appeared when their need for priority handling in their letter of submittal. A series paper was submitted. Authors are not held responsible for of Rapid Communications by one group on a particular sub- references to preprints, internal reports, results that have ject is discouraged. been reported only orally at meetings ͑even though an abstract may have been printed͒, or for papers that have ap- A Brief Report is an account of completed research that peared in publications not abstracted in standard abstracting meets the usual Physical Review standards of scienti®c qual- journals. If such work is called to the attention of the authors ity but is not appropriate for a regular article ͑or for the by a referee, however, they are encouraged ͑but not required͒ priority handling given to Rapid Communications͒. An- to refer to it. If revision of a manuscript takes a substantial nouncements of planned research, progress reports, and pre- time ͑several months͒, the references should be updated to liminary results are generally not suitable for publication as include recently published relevant work. Authors are ex- Brief Reports. The normal publication schedule is followed. pected to include references to relevant books and to published conference proceedings that contain more than ab- Comments are publications that criticize or correct papers of stracts. other authors previously published in Physical Review E. Each Comment should contain an abstract and should state Papers that describe proposed experiments fall into a spe- clearly the paper to which it refers. To be considered for cial category. For such papers to be acceptable, the experi- publication, a Comment must be written in a collegial tone ments must be demonstrated to be novel and feasible. It is ͑free from polemics͒ and must be pertinent and without egre- the author's responsibility to show that their proposal is gious errors. A Reply to a Comment must also conform to likely to stimulate research that might not otherwise be un- these requirements. Editorial procedures for processing dertaken. Comments are described in the following section.

Material previously published in a Letters journal, as a Errata are notices of errors or omissions in papers previ- Rapid Communication, or in conference proceedings can be ously published in Physical Review E. Errata should be as the basis of an article in Physical Review E, provided the brief as possible. An Erratum should contain a short state- submitted manuscript presents considerably more informa- ment of the correction͑s͒ and, where appropriate, a descrip- tion, enabling the reader to obtain a substantially improved tion of any effects on the conclusions of the paper. understanding of the subject. Figures, tables, and text material that have been published previously should be refer- enced, not repeated. Exceptions can be warranted by unusual EDITORIAL PROCEDURES circumstances. Usually, one referee is selected by the Editor for each manu- SHORT PAPERS script; there are exceptions, as with almost all procedural matters discussed below. Referee reports are advisory to the Physical Review E publishes Articles, Rapid Communica- Editor͑s͒, but are generally transmitted by the Editor͑s͒ to the tions, Brief Reports, and Comments. The scienti®c content authors, and so should be written in a collegial manner. The of all sections of the Journal is judged by the same crite- Editor͑s͒ may withhold or edit these reports for cause. If in ria. The sections are distinguished by the different purposes the judgment of the Editor͑s͒ a paper is clearly unsuitable for for which the papers are intended. Physical Review E, it will be rejected without review; authors of such papers have the same right to appeal as do other Each paper must have an abstract. Short papers are limited to authors.

ix Any resubmittal should be accompanied by a summary of the mission of the manuscript, even with the plagiarized text changes made, and a brief response to all recommendations removed, is not ordinarily allowed. However, the Editors and criticisms. This material will normally be forwarded to may allow exceptions to this policy if warranted by special reviewers, and so should be written in a collegial manner. circumstances. Remarks that authors wish to address solely to the Editor͑s͒ should be clearly identi®ed and separated from the summary Authors may request that particular individuals not be cho- sen as referees. Such requests are usually honored, although and response. it is customary to give authors whose work is criticized in a manuscript an opportunity to respond to the criticism. Au- A manuscript may be sent to additional referees if warranted, thors are welcome to submit a list of experts whom they either by request of the authors or by editorial decision. In consider especially suited to referee their paper. Such a list is most cases the new referee will be provided with previous particularly useful when a manuscript treats a highly special- correspondence on the manuscript, but not with the identity ized subject on which papers are infrequently published. The of the previous referee͑s͒. Editorial Board members, how- Editors, however, are not constrained to select a referee from ever, may receive this information. that list.

Since the referee is usually best quali®ed to judge a paper, Authors may request that their identities not be revealed to the author should direct his or her responses to the items the referees „``double-blind'' reviewing…. If such a request raised in the referee report. In general, very long rebuttal is made, it is the authors' responsibility to furnish a copy of letters explaining contentious points in a manuscript should the manuscript without the authors' names, addresses, and the acknowledgment section. be avoided in favor of clarifying alterations in the manuscript itself. In some circumstances information about a manuscript considered by Physical Review E and subsequently submitted to Papers are accepted for publication based on favorable rec- another journal may be provided to the editor of that journal. ommendations by the referee͑s͒. On the other hand, the Edi- Such information might include the comments and identities tors can and will seek additional opinions when in their judg- of referees. ment such action seems called for. It is the policy of this journal that every effort be made to arrive at a decision on The reviewing procedure for Comments, papers that criti- disposition within a reasonable time. cize others' work, is usually as follows:

After acceptance of a manuscript, if further information that ͑1͒ The paper is ®rst sent to the author͑s͒ whose work is seems to warrant investigation is received, the Editors will being criticized. These author͑s͒ act as reviewers ͑usually not regard it as an obligation to reconsider their decision. anonymously͒ and should send a report suitable for trans- mittal to the author ͑not a Reply͒. Authors should state whether the paper they submit has been previously considered for publication in another APS jour- ͑2͒ After suitable exchanges between the involved parties, nal (Physical Review Letters, other Physical Review journals, the Comment, along with relevant correspondence, is sent to or Reviews of Modern Physics͒. an ``uninvolved'' referee for anonymous review. If this referee recommends acceptance of the paper, then the authors When a manuscript has several authors, one of them, the whose work is being commented on are given the opportu- corresponding author, should be designated to receive and nity to write a Reply for possible simultaneous publication. This Reply will also be reviewed ͑usually by the ``unin- respond to correspondence from the Editors. This designa- volved'' referee͒. tion can be changed upon noti®cation of the Editors. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to represent all ͑3͒ After the Comment and Reply have been accepted for those involved with the work reported and to ensure that the publication, the author of the Comment is sent a copy of the content of the manuscript and the list of authors meet with Reply for his or her information. If further changes are made their approval, both initially and through any subsequent in the Comment, it may be subject to further review. The changes. Comment and Reply usually are published in the same issue, with the Reply immediately following the Comment. If there Authors may not present data and other results obtained by is undue delay in the preparation and review of the Reply, others as if they were their own. Nor may authors incorpo- the Comment may be published before the Reply. The nor- rate without attribution text from the works of another au- mal publication schedule is followed. thor, even when summarizing past results or background material. If a direct quotation is appropriate, the quotation AUTHOR APPEALS should be clearly indicated as such and the original source should be properly cited. Papers that have been found to be Authors may appeal a rejection of their paper by the Edi- in violation of this rule will be rejected. In such cases, resub- tor͑s͒. In the case of a formal appeal, the paper and all rel-

x evant information, including the identities of the referees, Papers transferred from Physical Review Letters or other will be sent to a member of the Editorial Board. The Board Physical Review journals that are accepted without further member may review the case on the existing record or may review ͑and are not delayed unduly by the authors͒ will re- seek additional expert opinion. The Board member will tain the original receipt date. In other cases a new receipt present a signed advisory opinion to the Editor͑s͒. date, which is the date of transfer, will generally be given. However, the authors may request that the original receipt If a Board member has provided a referee report on a paper date be retained. prior to appeal, another Board member must review the paper on appeal. Authors may suggest those Board members they feel are appropriate ͑or not appropriate͒ to conduct the AUTHOR INQUIRIES review, but the Editor͑s͒ is ͑are͒ not bound by such suggestions. If there is no suitable Board member available, the The Author Status Inquiry System ͑ASIS͒ provides informa- Editor͑s͒ may appoint an appropriate scientist to consider a tion to authors regarding the status of their manuscripts au- paper under appeal as an ad hoc Board member. tomatically via the World Wide Web at the URL http://publish.aps.org/STATUS/status.html. Alternatively, The author of a paper that has been rejected subsequent to an authors may send an electronic mail message to Editorial Board review may request that the case be reviewed [email protected] using as the subject line the manuscript code by the Editor-in-Chief of the APS. This request should be number followed by the last name of the ®rst author ͑for addressed to the Editor, who will forward the entire ®le to example, EF1234 Jones͒. The body of the message should be the Editor-in-Chief. Such an appeal must be based on the empty ͑no human will read it͒. fairness of the procedures followed, and must not be a request for another scienti®c review. The question to be an- Telephone inquiries regarding status are discouraged, since swered in this review is: Did the paper receive a fair hearing? the interruption of normal of®ce procedures can cause de- The decision of the Editor-in-Chief concludes the consider- lays. In those cases when clari®cation of the information ation of the manuscript by the American Physical Society. from ASIS is needed, send an electronic mail message to [email protected] ͑with subject line, for example, Status EF1234 RECEIPT DATES Jones͒.

Each paper, when published, carries a receipt date indicating For papers that have been accepted for publication, when the manuscript was ®rst received by the Editors of information about their status in the production process Physical Review E. can be obtained from AIP's Accepted Manuscript Status Inquiry System ͑AMSIS͒ at the URL If authors make substantive changes in a manuscript or if http://www.aip.org/msinq/status.html. You will need the ac- they hold it for an unusually long time after it has been cession code of your paper ͑called ``editor code'' on AM- returned to them with a referee's report, the paper will be SIS͒ and the last name of one of the ®rst three authors. given a ``revised manuscript receipt date.'' In such cases, the authors may be required to revise references to include ma- The Editors welcome suggestions from authors and referees terial published since the original submission of the manu- regarding improvements in editorial and refereeing proce- script. In cases of especially lengthy delays the original paper dures. is considered withdrawn, and the resubmitted version is considered to be a new paper and is given a new receipt date. The Editors of Physical Review E