X
My Account Submit My Manuscript
Letpub, Scientific Editing Services, Manuscript Editing Service

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

   For Publishers  New

Browse Journals by Title


Journal name:   ISSN:   Subject area:   IF range: -
Index:   Category:   Open Access:   Sort by:
Journal Cover Design
FREE Webinar: Understanding Research Metrics: What Really Matters?

[PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS]Hello, you are Visitor Number 136944 on this page.

Journal Profile
Journal TitlePHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
Journal Title AbbreviationsPHYS REV LETT
ISSN0031-9007
E-ISSN1079-7114
h-index567
CiteScore
CiteScoreSJRSNIPCiteScore Rank
15.603.5882.370
Subject fieldQuartilesRankPercentile
Category: Physics and Astronomy
Subcategory: General Physics and Astronomy
Q110 / 224

Self-Citation Ratio (2019-2020)8.60%
Official Websitehttp://prl.aps.org/
Online Manuscript Submissionhttps://authors.aps.org/ESUB/
Open AccessNo
PublisherAMER PHYSICAL SOC, ONE PHYSICS ELLIPSE, COLLEGE PK, USA, MD, 20740-3844
Subject AreaPhysics
Country/Area of PublicationUNITED STATES
Publication FrequencyWeekly
Year Publication Started1958
Annual Article Volume2644
Indexing (SCI or SCIE)Science Citation Index
Science Citation Index Expanded
Link to PubMed Central (PMC)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog?term=0031-9007%5BISSN%5D
Average Duration of Peer Review *Authorized Data from Publisher:
Data from Authors: About 2.1 month(s)
Competitiveness *Data from Authors: 50%
Useful Links
Relevant Journals 【PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS】CiteScore Trend
Comments from Authors
*All review process metrics, such as acceptance rate and review speed, are limited to our user-submitted manuscripts. As such they may not reflect the journals' exact competitiveness or speed.
  • Journals in the Same Subject Area
  • CiteScore Trend


First    Previous    1    2    Next    Last  (To Page
/2)
  Reviews on PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS: Write a review
Author: QQQ


Subject Area: Physics
Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s)
Result: Rejected


Write a review

Reviewed 2019-08-16 12:22:14
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

Author: wangdoudou


Subject Area: Physics
Duration of Peer Review: 4.0 month(s)
Result: Pending & Unknown


Write a review

Reviewed 2019-07-13 00:32:25
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

Author: 4027


Subject Area: Mathematical Science
Duration of Peer Review: 4.0 month(s)
Result: Pending & Unknown


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-07-17 04:20:19
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."
Show Review in Original Language
(6) Thank | 4027

Author: dmt1414


Subject Area: Mathematical Science
Duration of Peer Review: 4.0 month(s)
Result: Pending & Unknown


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-07-09 01:30:40
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.
Show Review in Original Language
(0) Thank | dmt1414

Author: 0897


Subject Area: Mathematical Science
Duration of Peer Review: 3.0 month(s)
Result: Pending & Unknown


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-07-06 00:02:37
Frequently expatriate, do not know how to understand, graduate students.
Show Review in Original Language
(0) Thank | 0897

Author: 222


Subject Area: Engineering and Materials
Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s)
Result: Accepted after revision


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-06-28 10:45:40
The review is strict and very strict!
Show Review in Original Language
(1) Thank | 222

Author: 4557


Subject Area: Mathematical Science
Duration of Peer Review: 2.0 month(s)
Result: Pending & Unknown


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-05-18 09:15:54
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?
Show Review in Original Language
(5) Thank | 4557

Author: longliveZD


Subject Area: Mathematical Science
Duration of Peer Review: 3.0 month(s)
Result: Pending & Unknown


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-03-29 03:27:58
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.
Show Review in Original Language
(4) Thank | longliveZD

Author: prl0502


Subject Area: Mathematical Science
Duration of Peer Review: 2.0 month(s)
Result: Pending & Unknown


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-03-29 02:57:00
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!
Show Review in Original Language
(6) Thank | prl0502

Author: liurm7@mail.sysu.edu.cn


Subject Area: Mathematical Science
Duration of Peer Review: 2.0 month(s)
Result: Accepted after revision


Write a review

Reviewed 2017-09-20 22:55:27
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.
Show Review in Original Language
(26) Thank | liurm7@mail.sysu.edu.cn

Author: Anonymous


Subject Area: Mathematical Science
Duration of Peer Review: 2.0 month(s)
Result: Accepted after revision


Write a review

Reviewed 2016-08-17 10:30:28
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.
Show Review in Original Language
(15) Thank | Anonymous

Author: sciencewatch


Subject Area: Mathematical Science
Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s)
Result: Rejected


Write a review

Reviewed 2014-12-11 21:19:54
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.
Show Review in Original Language
(7) Thank | sciencewatch

Author: ohyou


Subject Area: Mathematical Science
Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s)
Result: Pending & Unknown


Write a review

Reviewed 2014-04-16 13:04:17
Why prl are 2 districts?
Show Review in Original Language
(5) Thank | ohyou

Author: Anonymous


Subject Area: Mathematical Science
Duration of Peer Review: 0.0 month(s)
Result:


Write a review

Reviewed 2013-10-23 06:12:00
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.
Show Review in Original Language
(5) Thank | Anonymous

Author: Anonymous


Subject Area: Mathematical Science
Duration of Peer Review: 0.0 month(s)
Result:


Write a review

Reviewed 2013-09-23 22:21:00
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.
Show Review in Original Language
(2) Thank | Anonymous

Author: Anonymous


Subject Area: Mathematical Science
Duration of Peer Review: 0.0 month(s)
Result:


Write a review

Reviewed 2013-08-10 05:58:00
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
Show Review in Original Language
(3) Thank | Anonymous

Author: Anonymous


Subject Area:
Duration of Peer Review: 0.0 month(s)
Result:


Write a review

Reviewed 2012-12-18 21:04:00
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.
Show Review in Original Language
(3) Thank | Anonymous

Author: Anonymous


Subject Area:
Duration of Peer Review: 0.0 month(s)
Result:


Write a review

Reviewed 2012-10-17 15:42:00
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.
Show Review in Original Language
(0) Thank | Anonymous

Author: Anonymous


Subject Area: Mathematical Science
Duration of Peer Review: 0.0 month(s)
Result:


Write a review

Reviewed 2012-09-12 01:59:00
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.
Show Review in Original Language
(0) Thank | Anonymous

Author: Anonymous


Subject Area:
Duration of Peer Review: 0.0 month(s)
Result:


Write a review

Reviewed 2012-08-27 23:04:00
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.
Show Review in Original Language
(1) Thank | Anonymous

Author: Anonymous


Subject Area:
Duration of Peer Review: 0.0 month(s)
Result:


Write a review

Reviewed 2012-03-08 20:11:00
PRL Physics is a prestigious top journal, the ultimate dream of physics workers.
Show Review in Original Language
(2) Thank | Anonymous

Author: Anonymous


Subject Area: Information Science
Duration of Peer Review: 0.0 month(s)
Result:


Write a review

Reviewed 2012-01-06 22:06:00
Very professional review and editing, no need to say, physical top!
Show Review in Original Language
(0) Thank | Anonymous

Author: Anonymous


Subject Area:
Duration of Peer Review: 0.0 month(s)
Result:


Write a review

Reviewed 2011-03-17 20:48:00
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)
Show Review in Original Language
(3) Thank | Anonymous

Author: Anonymous


Subject Area:
Duration of Peer Review: 0.0 month(s)
Result:


Write a review

Reviewed 2011-01-26 18:22:00
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.)
Show Review in Original Language
(0) Thank | Anonymous

Author: Anonymous


Subject Area: 基础Physics
Duration of Peer Review: 0.0 month(s)
Result:


Write a review

Reviewed 2010-10-31 09:04:00
Since last year, PRL has been greatly reduced.Since the volume of manuscripts (about half of each period since the second half of 2009), it is getting harder and harder to issue PRL.Moreover, PRL seems to have a tendency to circle culture. If it is not a circle, it is generally much more difficult to publish.
Show Review in Original Language
(0) Thank | Anonymous

First    Previous    1    2    Next    Last  (To Page
/2)

Start your review of [PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS]:





Disclaimer: All information sourced directly from the journals is subject to change. Please use the journal homepage link to verify all information prior to submission.


© 2010-2021  ACCDON LLC 400 5th Ave, Suite 530, Waltham, MA 02451, USA
PrivacyTerms of Service