Manuscript Preparation

Content Guidelines

Readability and accessibility: The manuscript should be directed to a general audience with knowledge typical only to introductory college scientific curricula. Avoid using jargon or technical terms and excessive use of acronyms. If either is necessary, define them in the text. Avoid the introduction of novel terminology.

Please proofread your paper prior to submission to eliminate any grammatical/spelling errors.

Justification: Original articles require a statement of justification in the submission process. This explanation of why the article meets the journal’s acceptance criteria is limited to 100 words.

Length: limits vary according to the format of the submission

  • Rapid communication: 3 pages or 1,000 words
  • Original article: 15 pages or 5,000 words

Abstracts

Abstracts should summarize the subjects, conclusions, and results of the manuscript. Summarize the experiments and/or analysis performed and briefly situate the work in the field. Abstracts should be self-contained, containing no footnotes or math.

Abstract length: limits vary according to the format of the submission

  • Rapid communication: 150 words
  • Original article: 300 words

Graphical abstracts may also accompany the submission. Choose an image that conveys the main point of the contribution. This may be a figure from the manuscript or an image separately prepared.

Technical Formatting

Information on formatting can be found at the author guidelines page for Physical Review Letters. Especially note that math should be properly punctuated and that vectors are denoted with mathematical boldface.

Manuscript Submission and Review

There is a single manuscript submission portal for both rapid communications and original articles. For each, have format have the title, abstract, and pdf prepared. If resubmitting, you will additionally need to provide the unique manuscript ID assigned upon your first submission and a response to the reviewers’ comments.

Peer-review process

The anonymous review of articles by peers is an important reason that scientific journals exist. This is to ensure that readers can be confident that the information contained has been judged by at least one expert to be new and interesting and without any apparent flaws. Authors also benefit via feedback on the work. This is evidenced by the frequency that referees appear in the acknowledgements section of many scientific articles.

Timeline: Because this journal is part of an intensive short-term course, the time from the receipt of a manuscript to the return of referee reports is rapid. However, publication decisions from the editor will be reserved until all submissions have been received.

Referee selection: A peer from the class will be randomly selected. In the submission process, you may suggest reviewers or suggest referees to be excluded. Authors should avoid listing collaborators as suggested referees.

Rounds of review: Rapid communications will be reviewed once. Original articles will go through two rounds of review, being returned to the original referees.

Responding to referee reports: Authors should read referee reports as calmly and dispassionately as possible. Referees are doing you a service by examining your article for flaws. While they can misunderstand your work and find false flaws, this is often due to a shortcoming in the presentation of the material. Consider making slight changes to avoid misunderstandings presented by the referee. Respond to all referee comments, suggestions, and criticism, noting any changes that were made to the manuscript.