24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前主题已经存档。

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

» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐

Phys Rev Lett

» 猜你喜欢

有没有人能给点建议已经有5人回复
假如你的研究生提出不合理要求已经有12人回复
实验室接单子已经有7人回复
全日制（定向）博士已经有5人回复
萌生出自己或许不适合搞科研的想法，现在跑or等等看？已经有4人回复
Materials Today Chemistry审稿周期已经有4人回复
参与限项已经有3人回复
对氯苯硼酸纯化已经有3人回复
所感已经有4人回复
要不要辞职读博？已经有7人回复

1楼 2009-03-12 20:26:45

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

jonney1728

银虫 (正式写手)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 335.2
散金: 180
帖子: 526
在线: 245.4小时
虫号: 589370
注册: 2008-08-29
专业: 凝聚态物性 II ：电子结构

提高影响因子的办法？

赞一下

回复此楼

2楼2009-03-12 20:34:16

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

dawnlight

荣誉版主 (职业作家)

小木虫小小版主

物理EPI: 1
应助: 21 (小学生)
贵宾: 1.08
金币: 118.1
散金: 7022
红花: 35
帖子: 3600
在线: 1564小时
虫号: 448020
注册: 2007-11-01
专业: 纳米生物学
管辖: 物理

★ ★
lvzhu2007(金币+2,VIP+0):赞同 3-13 10:19

如果单从期刊的发展来看APS、AIP无疑输了，没有及时的调整战略，将很多本应该是物理优势的领域，比如纳米拱手想让对手。

在应用物理和器件领域，创新性明显落后，一些新型刊物Small，Advan.Mat，甚至是JPCB，可能有人不服气说他们没有深度，可是我有时候也在想APL上的文章深度又有多少呢？事实上，我了解的情况不是这样，据我所知，ACS的JPCB和JACS上很多计算的文章在我们看来和PR系列已经没有太多的区别。在深层次的理论高地，比如量子计算，磁单极子也已几乎被Nat.Phys所占领。

Graphene和铁磁半导体的出现本来被视为材料物理领域的救命稻草，不过可惜我们没有珍惜，现在这两个热点正从PRL，APL转移到NL和JACS上。过分强调理论的APS，看上去也没有太多办法，只能吧工作局限在理论计算上。PR几乎变成了计算物理，当然这也无可厚非。看上去也没有太多办法。如果当时能像ACS那样办个两个新刊，可能结果会截然不同。

最后回归理性，物理不是功利的学科，不应该以追求高IF为目标，应该以追求新的理论和现象为动机，我想这也是APS所追求和看重的。不管IF如何变化，PR任然是物理界最权威的期刊，我特意查了下物理的定义：物理学是研究物质世界最基本的结构、最普遍的相互作用、最一般的运动规律及所使用的实验手段和思维方法的自然科学。

这纯属我的一家之言。

赞一下(10人)

回复此楼

姿曰:年轻会结束，在结束以前，把想做的事做完吧!