Journal Profile | |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Journal Title | APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS | ||||||||||||||||
Journal Title Abbreviations | APPL PHYS LETT | ||||||||||||||||
ISSN | 0003-6951 | ||||||||||||||||
E-ISSN | 1077-3118 | ||||||||||||||||
h-index | 401 | ||||||||||||||||
CiteScore |
| ||||||||||||||||
Self-Citation Ratio (2019-2020) | 7.60% | ||||||||||||||||
Official Website | http://apl.aip.org/ | ||||||||||||||||
Online Manuscript Submission | http://apl.peerx-press.org/cgi-bin/main.plex | ||||||||||||||||
Open Access | No | ||||||||||||||||
Publisher | AMER INST PHYSICS, CIRCULATION & FULFILLMENT DIV, 2 HUNTINGTON QUADRANGLE, STE 1 N O 1, MELVILLE, USA, NY, 11747-4501 | ||||||||||||||||
Subject Area | Physics | ||||||||||||||||
Country/Area of Publication | UNITED STATES | ||||||||||||||||
Publication Frequency | Weekly | ||||||||||||||||
Year Publication Started | 1962 | ||||||||||||||||
Annual Article Volume | 1898 | ||||||||||||||||
Indexing (SCI or SCIE) | Science Citation Index Science Citation Index Expanded | ||||||||||||||||
Link to PubMed Central (PMC) | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog?term=0003-6951%5BISSN%5D | ||||||||||||||||
Average Duration of Peer Review * | Authorized Data from Publisher: Data from Authors: About 1.4 month(s) | ||||||||||||||||
Competitiveness * | Data from Authors: 88% | ||||||||||||||||
Useful Links |
| ||||||||||||||||
*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. |
|
First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last (To Page | |
Reviews on APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS: | Write a review |
Author: 辛苦的科研狗 Subject Area: Physics Duration of Peer Review: 2.0 month(s) Result: Accepted directly Write a review |
Reviewed 2019-04-21 17:16:50 The downstairs is really nonsense. I submitted three articles last year and one got accepted. The other two were not sent for review, and fortunately, they were later submitted to the journals in Q1 of material category and got accepted after revisions, one in ASS and another in CEJ. I feel that the article that accepted here is not of high quality as the other two articles. Now APL has become a playground for the authority academics, resulting in different quality of articles. This is also one of the reasons why the impact factor has been falling. The impact factor for this year should be around 3.5. Downstairs, you must be dreaming of a top 5 within two years. Don't be fooled, everyone. Be cautious when submitting to this journal, and the speed is not as fast as in previous years. Some editors are irresponsible, and judge the quality of the article based on the first feeling. Of course, this journal is still authoritative, but it is not realistic to rush back to a Q1. ![]() ![]() |
Author: kexue_880116@126.com Subject Area: Mathematical Science Duration of Peer Review: 2.0 month(s) Result: Accepted after revision Write a review |
Reviewed 2016-04-23 15:37:41 From what I’ve heard recently, the articles published in APL are still quite good. Many classic physics papers have been published in this journal. Our group submitted to APL recently, and our paper was accepted after 51 days. Apparently, the review period was longer than usual because one of the first three reviewers admitted that they did not understand our research, and therefore could not review the article. This was strange as the other two reviewers were thorough and critical, and clearly understood the evolution of the research (we were publishing a follow-up study to our advisor’s research). The editor found an alternative reviewer quickly, which was appreciated. ![]() ![]() |
Author: 循循 Subject Area: Engineering Duration of Peer Review: 2.0 month(s) Result: Accepted after revision Write a review |
Reviewed 2018-12-18 00:07:14 In the field of nonlinear acoustics, one reviewer agreed to accept directly, and another reviewer requested to add content, which was eventually accepted after revision.It took about 4 months from submission to final recruitment.The overall feeling that the journal requires the content of the article is relatively new, it is best to be a hot topic of recent research. ![]() ![]() |
Author: Critical_hit Subject Area: Physics Duration of Peer Review: 2.0 month(s) Result: Accepted after revision Write a review |
Reviewed 2018-11-11 16:42:14 The latest partition test version of the Chinese Academy of Sciences shows that APL has been classified as a district. ![]() ![]() |
Author: LightFloater Subject Area: Physics Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s) Result: Rejected Write a review |
Reviewed 2018-10-22 20:13:12 wrote an article about crystal growth, the editor directly refused, saying that the theme does not match, APL has reduced the number of manuscripts in recent years, many manuscripts are directly rejected by the editor. ![]() ![]() |
Author: Unknown Subject Area: Engineering Duration of Peer Review: 2.0 month(s) Result: Accepted after revision Write a review |
Reviewed 2018-09-04 17:08:38 Old physics journals, dealing with manuscripts "fast" (fast processing, quick review, quick publication), "quasi" (higher level of reviewing experts), "狠" (edit rejection)The draft rate is also very high, and the difficulty of submitting the trial is increased). ![]() ![]() |
Author: BigM Subject Area: Physics Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s) Result: Accepted after revision Write a review |
Reviewed 2018-08-15 05:46:10 The review is very fast and the editing speed is not so fast.After receiving, the line speed is very slow.Overall, it’s not bad, it’s fast and fast.Although it is getting more and more fading, it is still a veteran. ![]() ![]() |
Author: 懵懂男孩 Subject Area: Engineering and Materials Duration of Peer Review: 3.0 month(s) Result: Accepted after revision Write a review |
Reviewed 2018-07-13 16:07:23 Apl old-fashioned journals, support refueling ![]() ![]() |
Author: 707145297@qq.com Subject Area: Mathematical Science Duration of Peer Review: 3.0 month(s) Result: Accepted after revision Write a review |
Reviewed 2018-07-11 18:45:54 The reviewer is very responsible, the review is quick, overhauled, and directly acceptd after minor repairs.Still very lucky to submitted the first draft.Ha ha...Go ahead, come on!Share it together: 725554986 ![]() ![]() |
Author: 707145297@qq.com Subject Area: Information Science Duration of Peer Review: 3.0 month(s) Result: Accepted after revision Write a review |
Reviewed 2018-07-11 16:48:04 The reviewer is very responsible and the review is coming to an end.Overhaul once, minor repairs, it is directly acceptd.Ha ha..Let's share it!725554986 ![]() ![]() |
Author: 123木头人 Subject Area: Engineering and Materials Duration of Peer Review: 2.0 month(s) Result: Accepted after revision Write a review |
Reviewed 2018-06-25 10:55:48 No. 3.6 submission, No. 4.19 notification was rejected, complaints were made after overhaul, and there was a reply to the reviewer's opinion in the middle, and No. 6.14 was received, which was generally normal. ![]() ![]() |
Author: sdhgsdf Subject Area: Chemical Science Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s) Result: Rejected Write a review |
Reviewed 2018-06-19 10:55:17 apl Now the article is a bit awkward, it’s getting harder and harder, and it’s not going to be submitted for trial.The following is the number of articles, as of today2018 (1,017)2017 (2,804)2016 (3,104)2015 (3,522)2014 (5,147)2013 (5,480)2012 (5,102)2011 (4,531)2010 (4,553) ![]() ![]() |
Author: 葵花点穴书 Subject Area: Information Science Duration of Peer Review: 2.0 month(s) Result: Accepted after revision Write a review |
Reviewed 2018-06-08 00:08:21 Submitted in early April, the editorial department did not pass the review, and then entered the long reviewer status, and sent six review invitations before and after, all rejected, almost desperate, about 10 timesday.Fortunately, the deputy editor is more responsible, and issued three or four rounds, found two reviewers, the first three days to complete the review, the second two weeks, a total of about 40 days before and after, overhaul, 60 days of revision timeAfter the modification is completed, it will be sent back, and only one reviewer will be given, and the comments will be received one week.The total sharing time is approximately 60 days.It is said that it is getting harder and harder now. ![]() ![]() |
Author: 2678989664@qq.com Subject Area: Engineering and Materials Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s) Result: Rejected Write a review |
Reviewed 2018-06-05 09:46:04 does not match the theme, rejected for three days, very efficient ![]() ![]() |
Author: 我笑了 Subject Area: Mathematical Science Duration of Peer Review: 2.0 month(s) Result: Pending & Unknown Write a review |
Reviewed 2018-05-17 10:29:46 APL is a typical physics journal, which pays more attention to speculation, and the reviewers have higher requirements for physical thinking. ![]() ![]() |
Author: xmu Subject Area: Mathematical Science Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s) Result: Accepted after revision Write a review |
Reviewed 2018-04-26 11:16:11 30-Mar-2018 Submit05-Apr-2018 Come back to review commentsApr 11, 2018 revised24-Apr-2018 online ![]() ![]() |
Author: arlafa Subject Area: Engineering and Materials Duration of Peer Review: 3.0 month(s) Result: Accepted after revision Write a review |
Reviewed 2017-12-12 10:23:41 2017.1.18 Submission, the middle of the month to find the reviewer, on March 7th received three review comments, one of the reviewers I think I did not read my articleI have just found a few references for me to reject the manuscript. The other two reviewers have a more pertinent opinion and carefully answered the three reviewers. Of course, the first reviewer should be cautious, April 5.No. Rework, April 16th, second-instance opinion, the editor directly ignored the comments of the first reviewer, adopted the other two, seriously responded, returned on April 19, and received on April 28.Lasted 100 days ![]() ![]() |
Author: djt Subject Area: Information Science Duration of Peer Review: 3.0 month(s) Result: Pending & Unknown Write a review |
Reviewed 2017-10-25 09:30:25 Days Since Original Submission: 76This is a courtesy message to let you know that your manuscript, though now severely in peer review, is being monitored for continued forward progress.I would like to apologize for the continued delay. We are attempting to let the peer review process run its course, albeit slowly. ![]() ![]() |
Author: HH Subject Area: Mathematical Science Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s) Result: Accepted after revision Write a review |
Reviewed 2017-09-20 08:13:27 An article was submitted on AM before, not very smooth. After being submitted to APL, it was received within one month. The content of the article itself is more novel, and also thanks to the reviewer.Give professional advice. Let me see that the ambitious APL is back, and will refer to APL in the future, and good manuscripts will also be considered for delivery to APL. ![]() ![]() |
Author: beijuzhe Subject Area: Chemical Science Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s) Result: Rejected Write a review |
Reviewed 2017-09-17 09:54:38 Not submitted for review.More than one day was directly rejected, and the efficiency is really fast.. ![]() ![]() |
Author: FW Subject Area: Mathematical Science Duration of Peer Review: 2.0 month(s) Result: Accepted after revision Write a review |
Reviewed 2017-09-16 03:50:19 is already the third APL in the doctoral period. The overall feeling is that the difficulty of APL reception has increased a lot. It is difficult to submit the review at present. I hope to quote more, improve the APL impact factor, and hopeAPL can get better and better! ![]() ![]() |
Author: jxraman Subject Area: Mathematical Science Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s) Result: Accepted after revision Write a review |
Reviewed 2017-09-06 16:05:45 The work is actually very beautiful. In a journal with more than 10 years, it has been in the middle of six months. It mainly encountered small peers who are doing the same or very similar topics. The reason for the draft is untenable.However, the editor stated that the editor actually only believed in the reviewer.Later, he switched to APL. The editor found two reviewers. During the revision period, he changed to find a new reviewer. After three revisions, he lasted for 8 months. He actually found four reviewers and finally acceptd them.Not easy. ![]() ![]() |
Author: zhujiakun@hust.edu.cn Subject Area: Mathematical Science Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s) Result: Rejected Write a review |
Reviewed 2017-06-29 19:40:24 Thank you for submitting your manuscript, referenced below, to Applied Physics Letters. We have examined your paper, and conclude that it is not suitable for publication in, and will not reach the most appropriate audience through, this Journal. Sincerely yours, David Long Price Deputy Editor, Applied Physics Letters ![]() ![]() |
Author: zhujiakun@hust.edu.cn Subject Area: Mathematical Science Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s) Result: Rejected Write a review |
Reviewed 2017-06-29 19:38:45 review 5 days directly edited to the data, now it is more and more difficult to select for an APL ![]() ![]() |
Author: asiawan Subject Area: Mathematical Science Duration of Peer Review: 4.0 month(s) Result: Accepted after revision Write a review |
Reviewed 2017-05-23 08:00:33 A reviewer is a bit slow, dragging for more than 2 months.The journal has been submitted to the reception for a total of 101 days.I feel that if I am more biased, I still provide several professional reviewers. ![]() ![]() |
First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last (To Page |