24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前主题已经存档。

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

y1ding

铁杆木虫 (著名写手)

应助: 61 (初中生)
贵宾: 0.33
金币: 5959.3
散金: 1
红花: 21
帖子: 1884
在线: 491.1小时
虫号: 142265
注册: 2005-12-21
专业: 凝聚态物性 II ：电子结构

[交流] PRL编辑部决定将PRL数量减少一半

Dear Divisional Associate Editor,

For some time now the readers and Editors of PRL have concluded that it
publishes too many manus cripts. As you may know from the discussions at
our DAE dinner meetings at the March, April and other APS meetings, the
DAEs also largely share this view. The reasons are the following:

1) PRL is in danger of seeing the best new research results going to
Nature, Science, and in recent months, Nature Physics, and other Nature
journals.

PRL might become insufficiently selective to be attractive to authors
for the"best" papers.

2) The growth of PRL in recent years has made the journal unwieldy to
read, even in the areas of one's particular interests.

3) As the journal becomes larger, it unavoidably tends to be viewed as
no longer a distillation of the best research results.

The Editors believe that it is now appropriate to raise the standards
for acceptance in PRL and are launching an effort to reduce the weekly
size significantly. We aim at an ultimate reduction of something like
50%.

A statement of the criteria for PRL is attached. They are not
fundamentally different from the previous ones. The difference lies in
the rigor with which they are applied. It is this increase in the rigor
that will provide the higher selectivity we seek.

Your task in support of this effort is crucially important. We ask the
DAEs to consider specifically in their report whether or not the paper
would more appropriately be published in a more specialized journal, or
to provide reasons why it should be published in PRL.

There will be papers that we would have accepted that will, with the new
higher standards, be deemed inappropriate for PRL. These may, probably
will, be appealed. It is clear that a common vision of the standards
should be held by the Editors and the DAEs. One key question for
acceptance will be "will rejection represent a significant loss for
PRL?"

We plan to send an email to all referees and authors announcing the new
criteria (described briefly below), to explain the rationale for raising
the standards, and to state the goal of a significant reduction of the
number of papers published each week. In addition we will publish an
editorial to explain these plans.

We hope to hear from you and, of course, will highlight these plans at
our DAE gatherings during the APS meetings.

Sincerely,

Jack Sandweiss
Editor and Chair
Divisional Associate Editors
Physical Review Letters

回复此楼