| 查看: 1373 | 回复: 9 | ||||
| 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)
|
[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
招博士
已经有5人回复
-
青椒八年已不青，大家都被折磨成啥样了？
已经有6人回复
-
救命帖
已经有9人回复
-
青年基金C终止
已经有3人回复
-
26申博求博导推荐-遥感图像处理方向
已经有4人回复
-
限项规定
已经有7人回复
-
西南交通大学国家级人才团队2026年博士研究生招生（考核制）—机械、材料、力学方向
已经有3人回复
-
英文综述是否需要润色及查重
已经有5人回复
-
为什么nbs上溴 没有产物点出现呢
已经有9人回复
stone1235617
木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 7 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 2526.5
- 散金: 1073
- 红花: 10
- 帖子: 631
- 在线: 754.9小时
- 虫号: 738191
- 注册: 2009-04-02
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 凝聚态物性 II ：电子结构
9楼2009-09-08 10:07:31
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
2楼2009-03-12 20:34:16
★ ★
lvzhu2007(金币+2,VIP+0):赞同 3-13 10:19
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。 |
3楼2009-03-13 09:37:02
4楼2009-09-07 16:38:54