The following is a summary of the procedure normally followed for a manuscript. It is only provided as a general guideline for the authors in hope that it might help them interact with the editors of the journal.

 

Letters and Perspectives

Note: Submissions should not be sent directly to neither a Co-Editor nor the Editor-in-Chief.

Online submission is recommended. Papers can be sent electronically to the Editorial Office, which checks their length and completeness. If a paper is much too long, it will have to be shortened before being further handled. A PDF file of the entire manuscript will be required. If the file is incomplete, the paper is withheld. Once the file is complete, the submission date is fixed and an acknowledgment letter is sent to the author, possibly asking for details. The manuscript is then sent to the appropriate Co-Editor according to the subject of the paper and availability of the Co-Editor.

Authors are asked to name up to three Co-Editors whom they think appropriate to handle their manuscript, according to their fields of expertise but they should keep in mind that the chosen Co-Editor might differ from the ones they suggested.

Upon receipt of the manuscript, the Co-Editor to whom the paper was sent can decide that the paper is unsuitable for EPL. Such a paper is rejected right away, without being sent to referees. Authors of such papers have the same right to appeal as other authors at a later stage in the process (see below).

 

Comments and Replies

Comments on previously published Letters will be considered for publication. They should be submitted in the same way as Letters, noting the separate formatting requirements (maximum 2 printed pages, no abstract). Comments and Replies must be written in a collegial style. Polemics will be rejected without further consideration.

Comments will be referred to the Co-Editor who handled the review of the original Letter where available. Where the Co-Editor judges that the comment has merit, they will invite the authors of the original Letter to submit a Reply within 30 days, after which it will be assumed no Reply is forthcoming.

The Comment and Reply (if any) will then proceed together through the same review process as Letters. Where external review is warranted, independent referees will be consulted for anonymous reports: neither authors of the original Letter nor of the Comment will be used as referees. The referees may be the same or different to those consulted for the original submission.

Acceptance of the Comment does not guarantee acceptance of any Reply. If both are accepted, they are published together.

 

Editorial decisions

The Co-Editor may reach one of the following decisions:

• Accept without further revision
• Request revisions to address stated deficiencies
• Reject

Resubmissions are not permitted when a rejection decision is returned. Co-Editors are authorised by the Editor-in-Chief to make decisions on manuscripts based solely on their own expert reading of the manuscript. However, before accepting a manuscript, a Co-Editor will usually request at least one (preferably two) reviews from anonymous external referees to inform their decision. Such reviews are advisory to the Co-Editor, and the editorial decision may differ from one or more referees’ recommendations.

If a resubmitted manuscript is judged still to require extensive revisions, with or without external review, it will be rejected.

Authors and reviewers must engage collegiately in the peer review process.

 

Appeal

In exceptional cases, the authors may appeal a Co-Editor’s decision on their paper. The authors’ motivation should be clearly explained. Appeals must not be simply a request for further scientific review or additional refereeing, or a disagreement with the scientific appraisal of the reviewers. It must be based on whether the editorial processing for the article has been conducted fairly and in a manner appropriate with the guidelines for the journal. The reasons for the appeal should be clearly stated.

If the appeal is appropriate for consideration, the entire file (including the reports and names of the referees) is transmitted to the Editor-in-Chief.

EPL is expected to handle appeals fairly, objectively, and promptly, but is not obligated to accept every appeal.

The appeal case should refer to the last rejected version of the article. Revised versions should not be submitted and will not be taken into consideration at this stage.

The Editor-in-Chief can either reject the appeal or, after consultation with the Co-Editor who was in charge of the manuscript and/or the Deputy Editors Board, appoint an adjudicator. On the basis of the adjudicator recommendations and his own expertise, the Editor-in-Chief makes a final decision on the manuscript. The overruled Co-Editor and the external referee(s) are informed of the decision.

This decision is final and there is no further level of appeal.

 

Articles submitted simultaneously to another journal

It is understood that a manuscript submitted to EPL is not published elsewhere and/or is not presently submitted for publication in another journal. Therefore, it is the policy of the journal to reject a paper immediately when it becomes apparent that it has been submitted for publication elsewhere.

 

Errata, addenda, corrigenda, retraction and withdrawal

If you notice an error in your published article, there are several courses of action available:

 

• Erratum: should be published when we, EPL, have made an error in your article.
• Addendum: should be published to provide additional information for work previously published in the journal, usually written by the original author(s).
• Corrigendum: should be published when you (the author) have made an error in your article.

 

A post-publication change to the original article can only be made where the error affects the discoverability, visibility and citability of the article. For example, corrections can be made to author names, titles and abstracts. We only allow changes to affiliations, footnotes and/or acknowledgments in order to meet the requirements of a funding body, or those related to legal issues. Please contact the journal’s editorial office to request changes in these categories. If you have changed your name and would like to update previously published articles, please refer to our specific policy relating to name changes in the section below.

 

In cases where serious errors are identified, we may publish a retraction or expression of concern:

• Retraction: should be published as a way to correct the scientific record by bringing fundamental flaws/errors in a paper to the attention of the readership. This usually applies to cases where there is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to misconduct or honest error. When articles are retracted they are not removed from IOPScience, instead they are retained with a clear notice of retraction and bibliographic databases are notified, as per COPE guidelines. Retaining the original work ensures transparency of the published record, as online versions may have been accessed and cited by researchers prior to retraction. Copyright still applies to retracted articles, meaning permission may be required to re-use the retracted work, or submit the retracted work to another journal.
• Expression of concern: should be issued when concerns about publications have not been conclusively proven but are sufficiently serious to warrant warning potential readers.

 

Once a manuscript has been accepted, or a published article is available online, it is considered to be a part of the permanent scholarly record and it cannot be withdrawn, unless the research is found to:

• Contain defamatory content.
• Violate the privacy of a research subject.
• Be the subject of a court order.
• Pose a serious health risk to the general public if acted upon.

 

To request any of the above, please contact the editorial office.