PRB editors regularly engage the Editorial Board for advice on individual papers. Our intent is to incorporate the voice of the physics community at large in calibrating our standards. Such advice often comes at the initial stage of the review process when the editors decide whether to send the paper to referees or not. Currently, about 1/3rd of all submissions to PRB are rejected without such external review. Each of those decisions involves considerable deliberation from at least two editors. The primary reason for this step is to uphold the high standards of the journal and to free up precious time of our referees for deserving papers. Editors are receptive to well-argued responses from the authors after such rejections; where the disagreement persists, an appeal to the Editorial Board can be requested. Of all the papers rejected without review last year, only about 1 in 10 were resubmitted, and 2 in 100 were eventually published in PRB. Such a process, with the help of authors realistically assessing the merits of their own papers, has reduced the average processing times of PRB papers significantly over the last few years.
