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.
Submission
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).
Coverletter
Besides, EPL strongly recommends to send a cover letter with each new submission to EPL. The cover letter should not repeat the abstract or parts of the manuscript, but should address the following points in more general terms:
- (I) the originality of the work: are the methods and results original or only just a logic extension/improvement of an existing theoretical or experimental method? Have similar calculations been performed before or have similar samples been studied before? Do you present a result that has not been reported in previous work?
- (II) Importance/impact for a broad or more specific (sub)field of physics, materials science,… : Will the work stimulate further research?
- (III) Urgency of the work: Is the research topical? Does it advance the frontiers of physics?
- (IV) All private communication that you wish to share with the Co-Editor (e.g. Competition, novelty with respect to work of colleagues, …) but cannot be presented in the manuscript.
The cover letter is only meant for the Co-Editor and will usually not be sent to the referees. It should help the Co-Editor to obtain a fast and correct judgement on the suitability of the submitted work for publication in the journal. Note that EPL is “a letters journal exploring the frontiers of physics".
Refereeing Procedure
If the paper passes the first stage, it is sent for review (usually to two referees). Authors are asked to provide a list of possible referees suited to review their paper.
If a referee cannot review the manuscript, it may be sent to an alternative referee. Upon receipt of the referee reports, the Co-Editor makes a decision on acceptance, rejection or revision. If two reports are contradictory, he/she may decide to contact an additional referee.
Reminders
The Editorial Office regularly sends reminders to the referees.
Revision
If a manuscript needs revision, the reports are transmitted to the author(s) together with the Co-Editor’s decision and comments. When submitting their revised version, the authors should explain the changes made to the manuscript and respond to the remarks/criticism of the referee(s). Authors should also check that the length of the revised version does not exceed 7 pages. A PDF file is always asked together with the source files. An acknowledgment message is sent to the authors for the revised version.
The modified text should also be highlighted in the manuscript. If the file is in EPL style, please use the command revision. For other LaTeX files and word documents, please use standard command/tools for highlighting the modified text.
Based on the authors’ reply, the Co-Editor can process the manuscript further. Possible courses of action include (a) acceptance or, in exceptional cases, rejection without further review; (b) sending the manuscript to new or to the previous referees for further advice. If further refereeing is sought, the Co-Editor will make a final decision upon receipt of the report(s). No new revision will be allowed after the second round of reviews.
| Note: If no revised version is received within four weeks after it was requested, the Editorial Office will consider the manuscript as withdrawn and will close the file. |
| If a revised version is received more than four weeks after the author has been requested to carry out revision, it may be considered as a new submission with a new reception date. |
Final Decision
The responsibility of the final decision lies with the Co-Editor. Except in very rare cases (minor modifications, etc.), a decision resulting from a second round of refereeing concludes the editorial processing of the manuscript.
Acceptance
The electronic files are sent to the Production Office where copy-editing will be processed and proofs will be sent to the authors. At this stage, only minor amendments or small corrections, not meant to modify the content, will be accepted. If absolutely necessary, a ‘Note added in proof’ can be added, if the limit of 7 pages for the paper is not exceeded. Since modifications will be introduced into the files already in hand, revised or corrected electronic files should not be submitted at this stage
Rejection
In case of rejection, the reports that led to that decision are sent to the authors. This decision concludes the editorial processing of the manuscript.
Note: For papers which were rejected on grounds of EPL specificity (general interest, etc.) and not on grounds of scientific issues, the authors may opt for the transfer of their paper to one of the regular papers journals, ONLY if the Co-editor makes this offer.
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.
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.
Comments and Replies
EPL publishes Comments on papers, which have previously been published in the journal. The authors of the Letter towards which the Comment is addressed are invited to reply to the Comment within 30 days. Comment and Reply will be published together in the same issue if they are scientifically valid and of interest to the community.
The length of the Comment and the Reply is limited to 2 printed pages each, including figures and references. Note: there are no abstracts in Comments and Replies.
| The Comment should refer in its title to the Letter towards which it is directed. It should begin with the main point of criticism. As with a Letter, a Comment and a Reply are acceptable for publication only if the following conditions are clearly fulfilled: they are |
| • adding value to a scientific issue or clarifying some significant point |
| • scientifically sound |
| • of importance |
| • and of sufficient general interest. |
A Comment should discuss a point centrally related to the Letter criticized, and not simply a general topic or new work. Comments should also not be used as a vehicle to write a paper simply by extending somebody else’s work. Authors are not allowed to write Comments on their own Letters, and Comments cannot be used as a substitute for addenda and errata, nor to establish priorities.
Comments and Replies must be written in a collegial style, purely factual. Polemics will be rejected without further consideration.
Comment and Reply (if submitted) may be sent to the referees of the criticized paper or to an independent anonymous referee for advice concerning their suitability for publication in our journal. The authors of the Letter criticized are not asked to review the Comment as anonymous referees, and in any transmission, their Reply or their reaction is not treated anonymously. If the authors decide not to write a Reply, the Comment may be published alone. On the other hand, acceptance of the Comment does not guarantee publication of the Reply. Note: only one revision is allowed for a Comment or a Reply.
The authors of a Comment are encouraged to send it to the authors of the paper criticized before submission.
Errata
The authors who notice an error after the publication of their article can submit an erratum. If the erratum concerns a minor point, it can be sent directly to the Production Office. But in case of major modification, the erratum will be forwarded to the Co-Editor.
