Editorial Policies and Practices

The Physical Review journals are published by the American Physical Society (APS). As society publications, the journals strive to meet the needs and represent the values of a global research community. The Physical Review editors develop and maintain their policies and practices in consultation with scientists from around the world to ensure the journals uphold the highest standards for quality, integrity, and scientific excellence.

The editorial policies and practices described below apply to all journals published by APS. Authors, reviewers, editors, and Editorial Board members are expected to comply with these policies.

Information about a journal’s editorial criteria, article types, or submission guidelines is available on each journal’s Information for Authors page. Questions and comments should be directed to APS Help.

Editorial Oversight and Decision Making

The editors of each journal are responsible for that journal’s scientific content and editorial matters, in alignment with the policies and practices. (See also Editorial Roles in the Physical Review journals.)

• The policies and practices, and any changes to them, are implemented in consultation with APS leadership, and the research community, and they are informed by the APS Guidelines on Ethics.
• Diversity Statement

Authorship

Criteria for Authorship
Authorship Changes
Responsibilities of Authors
Author Affiliations
Use of ORCID iDs

Criteria for Authorship

Recognizing an individual’s contributions to research is essential for a fair and equitable scientific enterprise. All individuals who contributed significantly to at least one of the following aspects of the reported results should be listed as authors:

• Concept
• Design
• Execution
• Interpretation
• Write-up

Individuals who have made other contributions should be listed in the Acknowledgments section. (See details about acknowledgments policy in Byline Addresses, Footnotes to the Byline, Acknowledgments, and Statements about Authors.)

Large collaborations. Physical Review recognizes authorship agreements for large collaborations, provided that authorship is determined through a transparent process.

Artificial intelligence writing tools. AI writing tools cannot be listed as an author but can be added in the Acknowledgments. See Appropriate Use of AI-Based Writing Tools.

Contact emails. Active email addresses are required for all authors at submission to ensure that editors can contact any author as needed. Large collaborations may provide a Collaboration Spokesperson email address in lieu of email addresses for individual authors.

Authorship Changes

Requests to add or remove an author, or to reorder the authorship list after the initial submission must be accompanied by a brief justification and must be made by the Corresponding Author before the paper is accepted. The added or removed author(s) must be copied in the request and consent to the change before it will be implemented.

During peer review, the Corresponding Author may transfer the Corresponding Author role to a co-author. Requests for this transfer require consent from the current and new Corresponding Author.

Responsibilities of Authors

All authors are accountable for the work presented in the paper.

Corresponding author. This individual represents all listed authors during the peer-review process and must be designated for every submission. The Corresponding Author should inform all authors of the submission of a paper and the outcome of important steps in the review process.

The Corresponding Author’s affiliation at the time of submission determines eligibility for certain institutional Open Access agreements and transformative agreements.

By submitting the manuscript, the Corresponding Author certifies the following:

• The manuscript presents the original work of the listed authors.
• The manuscript accurately reflects the scientific results.
• All listed authors contributed significantly to the concept, design, execution, interpretation, or write-up of the research study.
• All those who made significant contributions were offered the opportunity to be listed as authors.
• All listed authors are aware of and agree to the submission of the manuscript.
• The manuscript has not been published by nor submitted to another journal while it is considered by a Physical Review journal.
• The authors have provided information to the editors about relevant unpublished manuscripts, including any previous versions of this manuscript submitted to a Physical Review journal.
• The authors accept the established procedures for selecting manuscripts for publication.
• Technically sound data exists (where appropriate) and can be provided upon request to support the conclusions and claims of the paper.

Post-publication contact author(s). One or more authors may indicate their email address on the published paper and serve as the point of contact for readers, researchers, or other interested parties. Contact Authors do not have to be the Corresponding Author.

Author contributions. All authors should be able to identify their specific contribution to the work. APS strongly encourages authors to outline their contributor roles using the CRediT taxonomy. See also Byline Addresses, Footnotes to the Byline, Acknowledgments, and Statements about Authors.

Author Affiliations

Authors must use the affiliation(s) where the research was conducted. Current affiliations where research was not conducted can be included as byline footnotes. See also Byline Addresses, Footnotes to the Byline, Acknowledgments, and Statements about Authors.

Use of ORCID iDs

ORCID digital identifiers allow authors to preserve their research identity and connection to their publications throughout their careers. ORCID iDs are required for all Corresponding Authors and are strongly encouraged for all other authors. APS requires authors to authenticate their identifiers via the ORCID verification process. Verification requests are sent shortly after submission to all authors who have provided an email address, and authors are asked to follow through as soon as possible. Adding ORCID iDs after a paper is accepted is possible but may cause production delays.

Authors who have verified their ORCID on a previous submission will need to repeat the steps for every future paper they coauthor.

Submissions, Resubmissions, and Transfers

Receipt Dates and Revised Dates
Relation to Prior Materials
Transfers Between Journals
References to Other Work
Supplemental Material

For information on manuscript preparation, style guidelines, and submission criteria, see the Information for Authors section of the relevant journal.

Receipt Dates and Revised Dates

The receipt date indicates the date the manuscript was first received through the Submissions Server. This date is verified by the editor and appears in the published article. Manuscripts transferred between Physical Review journals usually retain the original receipt date. If authors make substantive changes to a manuscript, it may be given a revised date, which also appears if the paper is published. In cases of major delays or changes, a resubmitted manuscript may be given a new receipt date.

Relation to Prior Materials

Previously published manuscripts or those being considered for publication elsewhere cannot be considered for publication in Physical Review journals.

Theses, dissertations, and conference proceedings. The Physical Review journals generally welcome manuscripts based on results published in a thesis or dissertation. Results previously reported in conference proceedings may also be acceptable; editors will weigh factors such as the degree of overlap, the audience and format for the proceedings, and whether the proceedings were peer reviewed.

Disclosing previous work. Authors should disclose recent, relevant unpublished work when submitting a manuscript. For example, authors should give code numbers of related manuscripts that are under consideration by a Physical Review journal, the title of a manuscript that is submitted elsewhere, or the e-print number of a manuscript deposited on a preprint server.

Reproduction of previously published figures, tables, and text. Reproductions should be kept to a minimum and must be properly referenced and comply with the copyright or licensing requirements for that material. Prior to publication, authors must show that they have complied with those requirements, possibly including written agreement of both publisher and author of the originally published work. For items reproduced from APS journals, no permission is required. For other sources, if the reproduced item was NOT published with a CC BY or CC0 open access Creative Commons license, permission should be sought. Note that some items may be held under a different copyright than the paper itself, which would be noted in a credit or caption.

Transfers Between Journals

The APS Portfolio provides many publishing options and welcomes the transfer of a manuscript between journals. If a manuscript is not suitable for publication at a given APS journal, the editor will consult other relevant journals to identify more appropriate venues for authors to consider, provided a suitable option exists. In the case that another journal (or journals) has expressed interest, authors will receive a single decision letter that includes both the editorial rejection decision and available transfer options within the APS Portfolio. These recommendations are intended to help authors identify a suitable home for their work; however, authors are always free to choose any APS journal to which they wish to transfer their manuscript.

How to Transfer

Transfers are considered resubmissions. Authors who wish to transfer their manuscript should either select the appropriate link in the decision letter to “accept” the transfer offer from a specific journal or, if they wish to choose a different journal, resubmit their manuscript to that journal on the Submissions Server.

When transferring from one APS journal to another, authors should submit a rebuttal to reviewers, when appropriate, along with the possibly revised manuscript.

Editorial Review of a Transfer

The editors of the receiving journal will make their own editorial decisions about the transferred manuscript (see Editorial and Peer Review Procedure). When a manuscript is transferred between APS journals, its history is fully available to the new journal. This history includes all correspondence between authors, editors, and reviewers.

Questions about the suitability of a manuscript for a given APS journal should be directed to the editors of that journal (see Contact Information).

References to Other Work

Readers benefit from complete referencing that communicates the precedents, sources, and context of the reported work. Authors should follow these guidelines when submitting or resubmitting a paper:

• Include proper references to pertinent earlier work and credit significant contributions by other researchers.
• Ensure references are comprehensive and up to date at submission.
• Add new references to relevant work published during the review process.
• You may cite e-print archives, books, published conference proceedings, internal reports, or results reported orally at meetings.
• Provide a reference list that represents the field and avoids favoring specific research groups, regions, or institutions.
• Avoid inflation of citation counts for personal gain, such as excessive self-referencing or excessive references to the journal reviewing the paper.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material (SM) is useful information that is not essential to understanding an article’s main results, such as multimedia, raw or analyzed data, parameters used in or produced by calculations, and computer codes as well as additional technical details on the work performed. All Physical Review journals provide a platform for Supplemental Material deposited as electronic files. For editorial policies and details about preparing Supplemental Material, see Supplemental Material Instructions.

Peer Review

Purpose of Peer Review
Peer Review Procedure
Selecting Peer Reviewers
Confidentiality of Peer Review Materials
Appeals

Purpose of Peer Review

Rigorous, fair, and equitable peer review is integral to advancing science. Peer review ensures that submitted manuscripts meet the highest standards of validity, novelty, importance, and quality of presentation.

The peer review process is directed by a team of staff editors employed by APS and active scientists (academic editors), who are ultimately responsible for any decisions regarding publication of articles in our journals. The editors are advised by experts in the field serving as referees and by members of the Editorial Board.

Editorial and Peer Review Procedure

The following summary is general to all Physical Review journals. Individual journals may have specific peer-review models and processes that are detailed in their Information for Authors.

Research integrity assessment. APS staff check all incoming submissions to ensure they meet the minimum standards for consideration for peer review. These standards include file readability, certain APS journals style and formatting requirements, the APS journals ethics and research integrity policies, and the basic structure and context expected for a scientific article. Editors are consulted as needed. Papers that don’t meet these integrity checks will be rejected without external review. They are ineligible for appeal to a journal’s Editorial Board.

Internal review. The editors may conclude that a submitted, resubmitted, or transferred manuscript is unlikely to move further in the review process on the basis of the journal’s criteria and can issue a rejection without external review, or without additional external review. Such decisions, known as desk rejections, allow authors to seek alternative publication options with minimal delay.

External review. When a manuscript is deemed suitable for review, the editors select a number of experts in the research area and ask for an advisory opinion in the form of a report. Reports provide advice to editors on the suitability of publication in the journal and advice to authors on improving the manuscript, if suitable.

Editorial decision. Editors send a decision letter with the reports (unless it’s a desk rejection) and suitable instructions on how to proceed. The decision letter typically includes one of the following options:

• Offer to Resubmit: Editors will provide guidance on the necessary revisions and clear steps on how to move forward. The paper will remain “active” on the Submission server for up to six months.

• Rejection with Offer to Transfer to Another APS Journal: If a manuscript is not suitable for publication at a given APS journal, but other journals have expressed interest, the editors will include those options in their decision letter, along with a likely course of action. The paper will appear as “active” on the Submission server to enable the author to accept the transfer. (See Transfers Between Journals)

• Rejection without an Offer to Transfer: Editors will indicate if no option within the APS Portfolio appears suitable. The paper will appear as “inactive” on the Submission server, meaning it is not under active consideration.

Resubmission. Editors may invite authors to resubmit a revised manuscript that addresses the reviewers’ comments. Upon resubmission, authors are encouraged to provide a point-by-point rebuttal to the points raised by the reviewers, a marked-up version of the manuscript indicating changes, and a list of changes made to the manuscript. In the rebuttal to the reviewers, authors should be succinct yet thorough.

Final decision. The review process concludes when the editors have sufficient information to make a decision about whether to accept the paper. The editors will then send a decision letter with the reports and, if applicable, suitable instructions on how to proceed further.

Rounds of Review. Editors generally offer up to two rounds of review to allow authors to respond to reviewer critiques. However, editors may either conclude the review process after one round if they have sufficient information to make a decision or add additional rounds in certain cases. Editors determine the most appropriate review process for each manuscript, striving to ensure that the evaluation is thorough and fair, and that it leads to the best possible outcome for the work and the journal.

Reconsideration for a Rejection After Review. Following a rejection, authors should contact the journal for guidance before resubmitting the manuscript. See also Appeals to the Editorial Board.

Editing Reviewer Reports. Editors share reviewer reports as they were written, providing context and guidance where needed. Exceptions include edits to correct grammatical errors, preserve anonymity, or remove disrespectful language. Editors may also revise a report in consultation with reviewers to improve clarity or tone before the report is sent to the authors. There may be instances in which reviewers also provide comments that are solely intended as advice for editors and may be held confidential.

Respectful communication. In all communications, language should be respectful and collegial. Editors and Editorial leadership reserve the right to take action against derogatory or demeaning language, or harassing behavior (see the APS Ethics Standards and the Editorial: Promoting Inclusive and Respectful Communications.)

Selecting Peer Reviewers

Editors select peer reviewers (or “referees”) based on topical expertise, as related to the manuscript. Referee identities are confidential but are shared with Editorial Board members in appeal cases (see Appeals). Reviewers should avoid disclosing their identities to authors unless they have discussed this option with the editors.

Authors are encouraged to suggest suitable reviewers. They may also inform editors of experts who have a potential conflict of interest and who might provide a biased recommendation. However, the editors are not bound by these suggestions and will exercise their best judgment.

Confidentiality of Peer Review Materials

Referees are expected to treat all materials associated with the review process as confidential. This includes the manuscript itself, any Supplementary Material, any reference material, all referee reports, authors’ responses, and editorial letters.

Referees may not use any material provided to them as part of the peer review process for their own research. Referees may share these materials with a colleague whom they invite to write a joint report, who would then be subject to the same expectations of confidentiality and conduct as the original referee. The name and contact information of any individual who helped write the report must be disclosed to the editors when a report is submitted. When you invite another expert to collaborate on the report, all parties should be mindful of potential conflicts of interest.

In general, all peer review materials are confidential and access for a given manuscript is restricted to the authors, referees, and editors throughout the peer review process. Requests for additional access to peer review materials should be sent to APS Help. APS will consider the purposes of the research, the qualifications of the researchers, and the cost of making the material available, among other factors.

An Open Reports pilot in which details about the peer review process are published alongside published articles is currently underway at PRX Energy. For more details, see PRX Energy Open Reports Pilot.

Appeals

Authors of manuscripts rejected, with or without external review, may appeal the decision to a journal’s Editorial Board. Authors should contact the journal before initiating an appeal in order to discuss all options available.

Purpose of an Appeal. An appeal is not an additional round of peer review. Instead, Board Members assess whether the editors reached an appropriate decision given the journal’s scope, criteria, and any expert reports.

Appeals process. Authors should address a letter to the journal that succinctly lays out the reasons for contesting the decision in collegial and scholarly terms. The editors will send the letter, the previous correspondence, and referee identities to an appropriate Editorial Board member. In the absence of a suitable Editorial Board member, the editors will appoint an appropriate expert as an ad hoc Board member.

The Editorial Board member will review the full correspondence and provide an advisory opinion to the editors. The editors will send the authors a final decision that includes the signed opinion of the Editorial Board member. This decision concludes the scientific evaluation of the manuscript.

Procedural Appeals. Authors of manuscripts rejected after an appeal to the Editorial Board may request to have the APS Executive Editor review the case. This request should be addressed to the journal editors, who will forward the case history to the Executive Editor. The Executive Editor evaluates whether the journal editors adhered to the Physical Review policies and practices and whether the paper received a fair hearing. The decision of the Executive Editor is final and cannot be contested further. (See Editorial Roles).

Ethics and Research Integrity

Ethics and Conduct Responsibilities of Editors and Referees
Ethics and Conduct Responsibilities of Authors
Misconduct
Reproducibility
Data Availability
Research Involving Human or Animal Subjects
Dual Use Research
Appropriate Use of AI Tools

Results reported in the Physical Review journals must be reliable and trustworthy to ensure further scientific progress.

The Physical Review aligns its guidelines for ethics and research integrity with the APS Guidelines on Ethics, providing additional details or policy where needed. To report a potential ethics violation in a submitted or published paper in the Physical Review journals, contact APS Help. Depending on the severity of the complaint, the allegations may be handled by Physical Review’s Head of Ethics and Research Integrity and may involve informing and working with the relevant institutions.

APS is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which has clear guidelines in place for editors when confronted with misconduct. If you suspect misconduct in a paper you are reviewing, please inform the journal promptly. Evidence that a published paper is based on fraudulent results, is plagiarized, or contains inappropriately manipulated images or figures can result in the publication of an Expression of Concern or a Retraction.

Ethics and Conduct Responsibilities of Editors and Referees

Referees must disclose any conflicts of interest (real or perceived) relevant to the publication process to the editors. These include having a direct competitive, collaborative, financial, or any other relationship with the author or authors that could affect the evaluation of the manuscript.

Editors and Editorial Board Members must also be mindful of their own possible conflicts of interest (real or perceived), and should recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where there is a suspicion of conflict, for similar reasons as those listed for referees above.

It is an ethical breach for referees, editors, or anyone else consulted during the review process to use materials shared with them for any purpose other than evaluating the manuscript. Making use of confidential information in this way provides an unfair advantage, and undermines the peer review process.

Ethics and Conduct Responsibilities of Authors

Authors should alert editors to any potential conflict of interest such as sources of funding, condition of employment, and any limitations on disclosure of data, code, or experimental details that would complicate or prevent the replication of the study. Authors are encouraged to declare any conflict of interest within the paper itself using a Conflict of Interest statement.

Misconduct

Data fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism corrupt the scientific literature, undermining the value and public trust of science. Evidence for these forms of misconduct can lead to the retraction of a paper, the publication of an Expression of Concern or other corrections.

Data fabrication is the generation of data through a process other than that which is described in the manuscript.

Data falsification includes passing off data as something other than what is being presented.

Omission of data that does not fit the desired conclusions or scientific case is another form of unacceptable data manipulation.

Plagiarism is the presentation of data and results obtained by others as if they were your own. Plagiarism also includes unacceptable levels of reuse of one’s own work without attribution, even when summarizing past results or background material. Direct quotations may be used when appropriate with a citation to the original source.

Reproducibility

A scientific article should include all relevant details a fellow researcher of reasonable skill would need to reproduce the work and verify the results. Referees assess reproducibility as part of the peer review process. Deliberately concealing details necessary for reproducibility studies runs counter to the APS core value of adherence to the scientific method, as well as the values of truth and integrity.

Data Availability

The Physical Review journals strongly encourage authors to share their data.

Sharing data supports the independent verification of findings, allows further analysis of valuable research data, and helps ensure transparency and trust in the published literature. Data should be publicly available at the time of publication where possible. However, embargoes on data sharing are permitted if necessary, such as to respect privacy or trade secrets.

Data availability statements help readers access available data.

• Authors submitting to Physical Review journals on or after Dec. 11, 2024 (Sept. 4, 2024, for Physical Review D and PRX Energy) are required to have a Data Availability Statement, which the journals will help prepare using author-provided information (see Guidelines for Data Availability Statements in Physical Review).

Research Involving Human or Animal Subjects

Research involving experiments with human or animal subjects should conform to the ethical standards outlined in the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals from the Recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The relevant section is II.E., Protection of Research Participants.

When reporting experiments on human or animal subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human or animal experimentation (institutional and national) and with the ethical principles outlined in the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. When applicable, institutional review board approval should be indicated in the manuscript. Also, the manuscript should describe the manner in which informed consent was obtained from any human subjects. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether the institutional and national guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals were followed.

Dual Use Research

Research that expands knowledge or advances applications can also have harmful effects to society. Even if these negative effects are unintentional, editors must weigh the potential harm caused by publishing a given research article. In the event that the sole reason for rejecting a paper is its potentially harmful societal effects, a journal’s editors will consult with their Editorial Board and APS Editorial Leadership to ensure a balanced perspective.

Appropriate Use of AI Tools

Artificial intelligence tools are rapidly evolving, and APS Journals continue to observe and learn about their uses from our authors and reviewers. AI tools may be used to assist with aspects of research, manuscript preparation, and peer review. We are committed to establishing clear boundaries where human judgment is required. Authors must take full responsibility for the content of their manuscripts; similarly, reviewers must take full responsibility for the content of their reports. Authors, reviewers, and editors must follow the guidelines under Appropriate Use of AI Tools.

Post Publication

Corrections
Name Change Policy
Comments
Errata
Expressions of Concern
Retractions

Corrections

Authors may request to correct self-contained errors in papers published within the past year. The changes are subject to approval by a journal’s editors, who will evaluate the significance of the change on the accuracy of scientific statements, on funding information, or on metadata (such as an author’s name).

Corrections will be described briefly and listed by date in the electronic version of the paper. This information will also appear at the end of the PDF version, following the references. Where applicable, the print version will be corrected if timing allows.

Corrections should only address issues that were known at the time of publication. They should not update information that changes following publication, such as author contact information or publication of references. To request a correction, authors should contact the relevant journal directly.

Changes to the Supplemental Material after publication are also subject to editorial discretion but are handled separately. See Supplemental Material Instructions.

Name Change Policy

APS allows authors who have published research in the Physical Review journals to alter or update their published names and/or personal pronouns for any reason. These changes will be made to the electronic and PDF versions of all published papers in the Physical Review journals requested by the author. In most cases, authors can request changes to papers published as far back as the year 2000. Names in the reference list can also be changed, provided those articles have already been updated. See APS Name Change Policy. Name changes and metadata corrections are reflected in Cross Mark, indexing services, and Google Scholar.

Comments

Readers may submit a critique or correction of a previously published article by other authors in the form of a Comment. Comments must appear in the same journal as the paper it critiques.

The opening paragraph should clearly indicate both the article to which the Comment is directed and the criticism. To be considered for publication, a Comment must be written in a collegial tone (free from polemics) and must be pertinent. While Comments may criticize the work, they should not criticize the work’s authors. Comments should not reiterate previously published disagreements. A Reply to a Comment must also conform to these requirements. A Reply should not solely restate information in the original paper. A Comment and Reply are crosslinked on the website.

All published Comments are peer reviewed.

Errata

Errata notify readers about errors or omissions in previously published papers. The standard Erratum is a statement by the authors of the original paper that briefly describes the correction(s) and, where appropriate, any effects on the conclusions of the paper.

Besides standard Errata, other notices may appear in this section, as described below. Each has bidirectional links between the original article and the notice in the Errata section. The category of the corrective notice is indicated in its title and in the link from the original article.

Expressions of Concern

An Expression of Concern raises awareness about a possible problem in a paper. It is used when an issue with the paper has been brought to the attention of the editors and when a possible resolution takes a long time or no resolution of the issue is possible. An Expression of Concern requires approval from the Executive Editor.

Retractions

A Retraction is a notice that the paper should not be regarded as part of the scientific literature. Possible reasons for this include, among others, presentation of invalid results and inclusion of results that were published previously in substantially similar form. (In the latter case, the prior publication, not the retracted article, should be regarded as the source of the information.)

To protect the integrity of the record, the retracted article remains online with a clear notice of retraction. Retractions are sometimes published by the authors when they have discovered substantial scientific errors; in other cases, the editors conclude that Retraction is appropriate. In all cases, the Retraction indicates the reason for the action and who is responsible for the decision. The word RETRACTION is also added to the title of the retracted article.

A Retraction made without the unanimous agreement of the authors requires approval by the Executive Editor.

Open Access and Publications Rights

Open Access and Transformative Agreements
Support for Researchers from Lower-Income Countries
Article Publication Charges (APCs)
Publication Rights and Copyright
Funder Compliance and Article Deposition

Open Access and Transformative Agreements

APS offers a range of open access and transformative agreements. Such agreements facilitate the open access publication of articles submitted by authors affiliated with participating research institutions, usually without cost to authors.

Find more information and a list of our agreements.

Support for Researchers from Lower-Income Countries

Access to the full range of APS journals and their archives is available through Research4Life for over 100 lower-income countries and territories around the world.

APS also has an open access program that enables authors in these same regions to publish their research open access without cost.

For full information on eligibility for both of these initiatives and how to take advantage of them please visit our support page.

Article Publication Charges (APCs)

APS aims to offer open access options for the Physical Review journals that meet the needs of all authors across the research communities it serves. Review details about current APC pricing for publishing gold open access in hybrid and fully open access Physical Review journals.

Publication Rights and Copyright

To publish a manuscript, APS must ensure that it has obtained all the necessary rights. In the majority of cases the standard APS Transfer of Copyright agreement completed by the Corresponding Author will continue to be sufficient. If, however, one or more authors are employed by a government agency or the authors choose an Open Access publication option a separate ‘license to publish’ agreement may also/instead be required. To help manage this process, APS provides an online, interactive service that guides the completion of the agreement(s) appropriate for any given manuscript. Authors will be directed, via email, to this service after their manuscript has been accepted for publication. Authors should be aware that accepted manuscripts will not be prepared for publication (copyedited or formatted) until APS is in receipt of all the agreement(s) associated with them.

See details on Publication Rights.

Funder Compliance and Article Deposition

Gold Open Access

Publishing in the Physical Review journals that are gold open access with a CC-BY license enables researchers to comply with most – if not all – of the current open access policies of funders.

APS’ open access agreements use a CC-BY license by default and are compliant with funder requirements. Gold open access articles may be deposited at any time in any repository in line with the CC-BY license, and may also be the version of record.

Green Open Access

For all subscription articles for which APS holds copyright, authors have the right to post and update the article on free-access e-print servers (repositories, including institutional and subject specific such as the arXiv) as long as the version of record prepared and/or formatted by APS or its vendors are not used for that purpose, and the APS copyright is clear. All article depositions should include a link/DOI to the published manuscript.

Depositing an article in this way is compliant with many funder policies around the world including in the USA.

Rights Retention Policies

Authors seeking to utilize a Rights Retention approach with CC-BY license on the accepted manuscript will need to publish their article as gold open access, which is a sustainable way towards publishing open access.

Note that as part of the APS copyright agreement, authors retain all other proprietary rights, including patent rights. Copyright is required for sustainable publication to ensure APS can maintain the scholarly record. The green route described above is supported by journal subscriptions, and applying a CC-BY license to such articles does not support this.