You may have noticed during the past few years that Physical Review B has been changing. As the new Editor, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify our current thinking on the standard for papers we wish to publish and the scope of the journal.
PRB has long been the home of condensed matter physics, but reflects the broad interests of those who practice it. PRB’s scope had grown organically over the years to include related fields such as materials science, chemical physics, and applied physics. This reality was acknowledged officially about two decades ago with the addition of Materials Physics to the journal’s title. Materials Physics, in some sense a catchall term, is an interdisciplinary science with a broad aim to harness the tools of physics and allied disciplines such as chemistry, surface science, nanotechnology, and optics to study materials of technological interest.
We feel that without further guidelines, such a broad focus for a journal is tantamount to none. Every successful journal defines a community—and in turn is defined by its community. Therefore, we wish to emphasize that for a paper oriented towards applied, materials, or chemical physics to be suitable for PRB, it should make an important contribution to its own field and also present interesting physics for our general readers. While these criteria are not new and to an extent subjective, authors should expect a stricter application of these requirements.
PRB’s scope makes it a large journal; in some sense it is many journals in one. Currently PRB publishes about 100 papers each week. However, scope is not the only determinant of a journal’s size. More important is the standard set for publication. PRB’s publication criteria, as defined by the APS in 1995, require papers to present significant new and important physics. We believe that over the years this standard had not been applied as rigorously as it should have been.
PRB’s push to address this issue began about five years ago, and over this period the acceptance rate fell from a longstanding average of 70% to 55% while the impact factor rose from 3.1 to 3.7. It is no coincidence that editorial rejection without external review grew from 5% to 30% in the same period. At the same time editors have become more discerning in their choice of referees and stepped up their proactiveness in decision making. While we have no set targets for the size of the journal, its acceptance rate, or impact factor, we plan for these trends to continue until all the papers we publish meet our standards.
In an era where the pressure to publish seems to outstrip the pace of real scientific progress, we believe that PRB has a responsibility to maintain a large signal-to-noise ratio. As we tell authors and referees, correctness alone is not sufficient for publication in Physical Review B. Rushing to publish the latest increment of what could be a more comprehensive and stronger paper does not serve the scientific community. Premature publication has led to more confusion than progress. We expect PRB papers to be of a high quality, and of use to the community.
The community plays a crucial role, via peer review, in setting the standards for the journal and defining its scope. The role of the editors is just as important, as they are responsible for choosing referees with the right expertise, eliciting constructive criticism, and making thoughtful, consistent, and firm decisions, too often based on conflicting advice. This requires strong scientific knowledge as well as editorial experience. PRB editors will continue to be strict in admitting papers for review based on overall quality and scope, and will exhort referees to be mindful of our standards. At the same time, editors are committed to managing a fair review process that heeds all arguments without prejudice.
With greater editorial authority comes the need for judicious oversight to ensure that the review process is fair and consistent. In the last year or so, the editors have been utilizing the extensive knowledge and research experience of the much-expanded PRB Editorial Board for consultations on select papers as necessary. This has proved valuable not only for those papers, but has also helped the editors and board members calibrate their understanding of the standards and scope of the journal. If authors feel strongly about a rejection, as always, they have recourse to a formal appeal that will be addressed by a member of the Editorial Board.
We look forward to your participation in our endeavor to continue improving PRB so it can best serve the needs of the community.
Laurens W. Molenkamp
Editor
Published 20 May 2013
DOI: PhysRevB.87.170001
PACS number(s): 01.30.Ww
