PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

The last reviewer of PRL recommended acceptance. There were three reviewers for the first review, and only reviewer A gave review comments, which were negative. Novelty was not enough. I revised and submitted it again. After the argument, reviewer A changed his mind and accepted it and it was sent to reviewer B. No review comments have been given for three months. In the end, the editor accepted it. The first article. Happy…

(53) Thank | jason

It was directly rejected by the editor. The boss thought this work was very good, but it was unexpectedly rejected by the editor of Physical Review Letters. This has never happened in our group. (There had been a lot of articles published on Physical Review Letters in our group.) The editor also attached the letter "Avoid the Tragedy of the Commons" which published on the homepage at the end. It seems that Physical Review Letters is about to reduce the quantity again. It is so difficult. I’m tired.

(10) Thank | QQQ

I’m going to submit a manuscript recently. It feels too difficult to publish in this journal, although 4 articles have already been published.

(17) Thank | wangdoudou

Most of the big cows have made fakes, and they can't make a big cow.According to Daniel Lu Changhai, Witten “has used some inconspicuous results when proving the positive mass theorem, but it has not been strictly discussed. Similar insufficiency is more than one in his paper, and some can even be classified as errors.So many small defects appear in one paper at the same time, which is quite rare for Witten, whose mathematics is extremely powerful." However, people are lucky, "Harvard University's mathematical physicists Thomas Parker and Clifford.Taubes (1954-) quickly improved his proof to make up for those flaws."

(6) Thank | 4027

Most of the big cows have made fakes, and they can't make a big cow.For example, Feynman's electron propagator, explained by Dirac's hole theory, misleads many field theory textbook authors such as Bjorken and Drell.Feynman did the research and did not use rigorous derivation to guess.Based on his extraordinary talent, he is often guessed by him.He himself said that using this kind of guessing cryptography is to hope to find a new physics theory, but most of them have not succeeded.

(0) Thank | dmt1414

Frequently expatriate, do not know how to understand, graduate students.

(0) Thank | 0897

The review is strict and very strict!

(1) Thank | 222

Physical Review part of the journalThe editorial board is indeed very corrupt and provides an umbrella for watering up.The Physical Review should not allow editorial editors to post articles on it, otherwise it is impossible to be fair.If the school allows teachers and students to fall in love, can it be fair?

(5) Thank | 4557

Innovation and fraud are comrades plus brothers.The big cows often teach you to stick to academic integrity, but they quietly fake.In fact, most of the big cows have made fakes.The Robert Andrews Millikan oil drop experiment created a fake.Sixty years after the Millikan oil drop experiment, historians found that Millikan published a total of 58 observations, and he himself had made 140 observations.In the experiment, he pre-estimated and removed the data that he thought was biased and the error was large.So as long as the conclusion is correct and the fraud becomes an innovation, you can get the Nobel Prize.Of course, if the conclusion of fraud is wrong, the fraud will become a scandal, like the STAP cell fraud incident of the academic goddess Xiao Baofang Haruko.Therefore, innovation and fraud are comrades and brothers.

(4) Thank | longliveZD

Physical Review series of journalsThe editorial board is very corrupt, gangs, retaliating, and providing an umbrella for academic fraud.It is forbearable, you can't bear it!

(6) Thank | prl0502

The first time to submit a PRL, the theory combined with the experiment.In the submission, I really realized that the PRL review was strict, and the opinions were favorable. According to the comments, I felt that the article was directly on the grade.It took 8 months from submission to reception.In less than two months, three reviewers were received, one was directly recommended, and the other two were positive, but they all raised many questions and were very professional.After that, the experiment was supplemented according to the reviewer's opinion (should be statistically made, supplemented for 3 months), and the model was calculated again (2-3 months), and it was directly accepted after 6 months of return.

(26) Thank | liurm7@mail.sysu.edu.cn

just received an article, not easy.The new idea will get good results, where the analysis is in place and the theory is combined with the experiment.

(15) Thank | Anonymous

Physical Review The review system for journals has an Achilles heel that protects academic or editorial members from academic corruption.This is because papers that differ from mainstream views, specifically papers that conflict with the interests of editorial members, are difficult to enter the normal review process if there is no potential relationship.The editorial board used the excuse of not complying with the journal standards and submitted the manuscript directly.If appeal, then the editorial board members review the manuscript, you can retreat if you just talk about it, because this is the actual final review, there is no chance to refute.Then again, this situation is not much, because really few innovative papers are rare.

(7) Thank | sciencewatch

Why prl are 2 districts?

(5) Thank | ohyou

Just had a second PRL was received.A person doing the simulation, I do the experiment.I am studying liquid crystal.I feel that the PRL has been stricter recently.However, it is precisely because of strictness that the quality and impact factor of the article can be guaranteed.There is another article recently prepared to select for PRL, hoping to be able to.

(5) Thank | Anonymous

At the beginning, the editor directly gave the rejection, and then argue, and then submitted for review, the first time to submit three reviewers, two can not be judged, one said the expression is not clear, it is recommended to rewriteOr modify the grammar spelling after submitteding prb (R), and then resubmit, two reviewers, one said Xiao Xiu, one said to receive directly.After replying to the first minor repair, the editor receives it directly.

(2) Thank | Anonymous

has been selectd 3 times as the first author and co-author.The first time was the work of my brother.An important new material was discovered, and the physical properties were fully characterized. The theoretical calculations supported our view. After the PRL, the two reviewers were positive and negative. The negative one was very unprofessional and didn’t feel very clear about the article, but suggested PRB rapid.Communications, we dare not argue, afraid of affecting future submissions, so I listened to the proposal directly to PRB-Rapid Communications.Later, the sample was sent to the neutron, and the PRL was easily hit, and the point of view was consistent with us.Hey, I don’t understand the boss’s thoughts at the time, I should seek cooperation early, I’ve already hit it, so a beautiful article

(3) Thank | Anonymous

I am doing cross-scientific research. I have worked hard for many years to produce a theoretical and experimental article on biophysical chemistry. I am studying statistical physics in biochemical systems.

(3) Thank | Anonymous

Briefly discuss the recent experience of submiting in PRL: I recently selectd two articles, all of which are experiments + theory.Judging from the final review comments, the editors are looking for two reviewers who are engaged in experiments.The two first-instance trials are two reviewers, and the total review time is about 45 days. There is always a delay.Of course, even if it is fast, it will wait for two weeks to edit the letter, and then reply to the review comments.As it turned out, the one who dragged the leg was agreed, and the editor was reminded that it was generally believed that the next day.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Strictly, the opinions of the reviewers of PRL want to make people cry.However, most of their opinions are relatively pertinent, which is very helpful to the revision and improvement of the article.RPL is undoubtedly the top journal in physics.With the increase in the level of scientific research and submitment in China, the articles published by the Chinese on independence have begun to increase.Of course, those big groups still occupy the majority.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

just received an article, not easy.There must be a very new idea, very good results.The analysis should be in place.The best theory combines experiments.It took half a year from submission to reception, and it took three months to complete the experiment.

(1) Thank | Anonymous

PRL Physics is a prestigious top journal, the ultimate dream of physics workers.

(2) Thank | Anonymous

Very professional review and editing, no need to say, physical top!

(0) Thank | Anonymous

My dream, I hope to publish a paper on one day.I recently selectd for an article, the second trial, but I did not feel that it was too difficult to have selectd, but was unable to answer the reviewer's opinion.I hope, but I think it is impossible for me to CURRENT STATUS OF MANUSCRIPT: With referee(s)

(3) Thank | Anonymous

PRL to avoid being directly rejected by editor, you must write cover letter to explain the importance of the article.Generally, the editor that wrote cover letter will not directly reject it.(Since 11 years, the editor has tightened the rules. Many times, the cover letter will be directly rejected, and the following PRB is also stricter.)

(0) Thank | Anonymous