PHYSICAL REVIEW B EDITORIAL POLICIES and PRACTICES ͑Revised January 2001͒
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PHYSICAL REVIEW B EDITORIAL POLICIES AND PRACTICES ͑Revised January 2001͒ Physical Review B is published by The American Physical substantially improved understanding of the subject. Pub- Society, whose Council has the final responsibility for the lished conference proceedings are considered to be publica- journal. The APS Publications Oversight Committee and the tions and material from them should not be submitted for Editor-in-Chief possess delegated responsibility for overall publication to this journal except as noted above. Figures, policy matters concerning all APS journals. The Editor of tables, or text material that have been previously published Physical Review B is responsible for the scientific content should be referenced, not repeated. Exceptions can be made and other editorial matters relating to the journal. only when warranted by unusual circumstances. Editorial policy is guided by the following statement adopted Publication of ongoing work in a series of papers should be in April, 1995 by the Council of the APS: avoided. Instead, a single comprehensive article should be It is the policy of The American Physical Society that published. This policy against serial publication applies to the Physical Review accept for publication those manu- Rapid Communications and Brief Reports as well as to regu- scripts that significantly advance physics and have been lar articles. found to be scientifically sound, important to the field, Although there is no limit to the length of regular articles, and in satisfactory form. The Society will implement the appropriate length depends on the information presented this policy as fairly and efficiently as possible and with- in the paper. Authors may refer in their paper to their own out regard to national boundaries. internal reports or theses that contain more detail than the Physical Review B has an Editorial Board whose members published article or they may deposit some of the material, are appointed for three-year terms upon recommendation of especially long tables, in the Electronic Physics Auxiliary the Editor, after consultation with the APS Divisions of Con- Publication Service ͑EPAPS͒ of the American Institute of densed Matter and of Materials Physics. Board members Physics. Files deposited in EPAPS are made freely available play an important role in the editorial management of the via ftp and the World Wide Web. As an electronic service, journal. They advise on specific papers where special assis- EPAPS can accommodate color-figure, multimedia, and pro- tance is called for, and participate in the formal appeal pro- gram files. Information about EPAPS is available via the cess. APS Research Journals home page at http://publish.aps.org/. EDITORIAL GUIDELINES New terminology should be introduced only when clearly needed. Excessive use of acronyms should be avoided. The If a manuscript submitted to Physical Review B is on a topic proliferation of specialized jargon can serve to inhibit com- not within its purview, but may be suitable for another Physi- munication. New terminology should be appropriate and, if cal Review journal, the Editors will transfer the paper to the possible, convey to the reader an accurate impression of its appropriate journal and inform the author͑s͒ of that transfer. meaning. It should not be frivolous, hard to pronounce, or Papers must contain new results in physics. Confirmation of based on a private joke. New terminology should not be previously published results of unusual importance can be introduced in titles. Justification for the introduction of new considered as new, as can significant null results. Papers ad- terminology should be provided on submission of the paper. vancing new theoretical views on fundamental principles or Authors should place their work in context with the current theories must contain convincing arguments that the new state of the field, but they are not held responsible for refer- predictions and interpretations are distinguishable from ex- ences to publications which had not yet appeared when their isting knowledge, at least in principle, and do not contradict paper was submitted to Physical Review B. They are not established experimental results. Mathematical and computa- responsible for references to e-prints, preprints, internal re- tional papers that do not have application to physics are gen- ports, or results which have been reported only orally at erally not suitable for Physical Review B. In general, authors meetings ͑even though an abstract may have been pub- should keep review material to a minimum. Some review lished͒. If such work is called to the attention of the authors, and reprise of past work is acceptable if the paper can be they are encouraged but not required to refer to it. If revision made more understandable and self-contained thereby. of a manuscript takes a substantial time ͑several months͒, the Material previously published in preliminary form in a references should be updated to include recently published Letters journal, as a Rapid Communication, or in a confer- relevant work. Authors are expected to include references to ence proceedings can be the basis of a regular article in books and to published conference proceedings if they con- Physical Review B, provided the article presents consider- tain more than abstracts. To assist editors and referees in ably more results and details, enabling the reader to get a evaluating papers, authors should provide copies of any un- iv published manuscripts or published preliminary versions of solely to the Editor should be clearly identified and separated their own work that are relevant to the work under consider- from the summary and response. ation. As a matter of policy, it is the goal of the Editor to arrive at Papers that describe proposed experiments fall into a special a decision on publication in as short a time as is practical. category. For such papers to be acceptable, the experiments This allows papers that have been accepted to appear quickly must be demonstrated to be novel and feasible. It is the au- and gives the authors of those papers that have not been thors’ responsibility to show that their proposal is likely to accepted an opportunity to exercise other options with a stimulate research that might not otherwise be undertaken. minimum of delay. In practical terms, this means that a de- cision on the acceptability or otherwise of a paper can nor- When a manuscript has several authors, one of them, the mally be expected after no more than two rounds of review- corresponding author, should be designated to receive and ing. Additional reviewing or initiation of the appeals process respond to correspondence from the editors. This designation should be reserved only for exceptional situations: extended can be changed upon notification of the editors. It is the anonymous review cannot be used as a vehicle to develop an responsibility of the corresponding author to represent all otherwise unacceptable paper into an acceptable one. To ar- those involved with the work reported and to ensure that the rive at a final decision on a manuscript, the Editor may also content of the manuscript and the list of authors meet with consult an Editorial Board member. ͑Board members are their approval, both initially and through any subsequent generally informed of the identities of referees of papers on changes. which they are consulted. See also the section on Author Authors may not present data and other results obtained by Appeals.͒ others as if they were their own. Nor may authors incorpo- Authors are encouraged to submit a list of experts whom rate without attribution text from the works of another au- they consider especially suited to review their paper. Such a thor, even when summarizing past results or background ma- list is particularly welcome when a manuscript treats a highly terial. If a direct quotation is appropriate, the quotation specialized subject. The Editor is, of course, not constrained should be clearly indicated as such and the original source to select a referee from that list. If there is a particular indi- should be properly cited. Papers that have been found to be vidual͑s͒ that authors prefer not be chosen as a referee, they in violation of this rule will be rejected. In such cases, resub- should so indicate and give reasons why. Although such re- mission of the manuscript, even with the plagiarized text quests are usually honored it is customary to give authors removed, is not ordinarily allowed. However, the Editors whose work is criticized in a manuscript an opportunity to may allow exceptions to this policy if warranted by special respond to the criticism. circumstances. Authors may request that their identities not be revealed to ͑ ͒ EDITORIAL PROCEDURES the referees ‘‘double-blind’’ reviewing . If such a request is made, it is the authors’ responsibility to furnish a copy of the For nearly all manuscripts, the Editor selects one or two manuscript without the authors’ names, addresses, and ac- referees to review the paper. Authors are requested to justify knowledgment section. the need for publication in Physical Review B in a submittal letter that can be forwarded to the referee͑s͒. When referee After acceptance of a manuscript, if further information that reports seem inconclusive, the Editor may consult another seems to warrant investigation is received by the Editor, it referee͑s͒. Additional referees are usually sent previous cor- will be regarded as an obligation to reconsider the accep- respondence, but not the identities of previous referees. Ref- tance decision. eree reports are advisory to the Editor, but are generally In some circumstances information about a manuscript con- transmitted by the Editor to the authors, and so should be sidered by Physical Review B and subsequently submitted to written in a collegial manner. The Editor may withhold or another journal may be provided to the editor of that journal.