Journal of High Energy Physics Submission Guide

This page was created by checking JHEP's current SISSA author instructions, JHEP's published workflow page, Springer's current JHEP journal page, the Springer submission-guidelines route, SCOAP3 journal and FAQ pages, and local Manusights physics-routing pages for sibling contradiction checks. The original evidence here is the translation layer: official pages tell you the upload route, arXiv and keyword requirements, SCOAP3 cost route, and workflow markers, while this guide turns those facts into a JHEP-versus-PRD-versus-JCAP submission decision.

JHEP's author pages reviewed for this guide do not publish a no fixed word limit or no fixed figure cap for ordinary initial submissions. The practical limits are still real: the abstract should fit on the first page, formulae and references should not be placed in the title or abstract, and JHEP has a front-matter warning for collaboration papers when author-list material exceeds 2 pages.

Submit to JHEP if the manuscript's natural reader is a high-energy physicist and the result is ready for a specialist HEP editor. Good fits include:

• formal high-energy theory
• quantum field theory
• string theory and holography
• scattering amplitudes
• collider phenomenology
• particle-physics models with a clear HEP audience
• theoretical or phenomenological work that the JHEP keyword list can route cleanly

Think twice if the paper is mainly:

• cosmology or astroparticle physics, where JCAP may be the more native SISSA title
• broad particles, fields, gravitation, or cosmology work that benefits from APS's PRD readership
• short, broad-physics work that should be tested against Physical Review Letters
• instrumentation or detector work whose strongest audience is an experimental-instrumentation journal
• mathematical physics with limited high-energy relevance

The practical test is simple: if the title, abstract, and first result do not make a JHEP editor assignment feel obvious, fix the framing or choose another venue first.

JHEP submission is unusually tied to the high-energy physics preprint culture. The SISSA instructions explain that authors can submit from arXiv or upload the files directly. The same guidance says authors need to provide an arXiv article ID, and that at submission they must characterize the work using keywords selected from the JHEP keyword list.

That means two documents have to agree:

Poor keyword choice is not just a metadata problem. It can send the paper to an editor whose expertise is adjacent but not exact. The fix is to write the abstract and choose the keywords together, not after the manuscript is already locked.

Across our JHEP pre-submission reviews, the most useful early signal is whether the manuscript's first page and metadata point to the same HEP community. The weak submissions usually have good physics somewhere inside them. The problem is that the editor has to infer too much from the title, abstract, arXiv category, JHEP keywords, and first figure or equation.

In our pre-submission review work, we see this as a routing problem rather than a formatting problem. Manusights internal analysis of JHEP-targeted physics manuscripts treats the first screen as a consistency test: arXiv record, JHEP keyword selection, abstract, first result, and bibliography all need to say the same thing about the intended referee pool.

The JHEP keyword-mismatch paper has a technically credible result but selects keywords that point to a different editor audience than the abstract does. The manuscript may read as collider phenomenology while the keywords emphasize formal theory, or it may motivate itself with cosmology while the actual contribution is a QFT calculation. The fix is to revise the abstract and keywords together so the editor can identify the right high-energy physics lane. Check whether your JHEP keyword route is defensible →

The PRD-or-JHEP ambiguity paper is strong enough for specialist physics review but unclear about community. PRD can be better when the manuscript spans particles, fields, gravitation, or cosmology and needs the APS umbrella. JHEP can be better when the work is squarely HEP and the relevant referees are likely to come from that community. The manuscript should make that choice visible in the introduction, not leave it to the cover note. Check whether JHEP or PRD is the better first target →

The arXiv-clean but journal-weak paper is already public and technically complete, but it has not been shaped for journal review. The TeX compiles, the arXiv record exists, and the result is real, yet the discussion does not state what the result changes for the JHEP reader. That is where a preprint becomes a weak submission: the paper is visible, but the journal claim is not. Check whether your arXiv preprint is ready for JHEP review →

The review tells you whether your paper passes that first-read fit test before submission. Reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train AI models on your manuscript.

Do not start the upload session while you are still deciding what the paper is. Build the package first.

JHEP's public instructions are not a generic biomedical-style checklist, so do not claim that every artifact below is mandatory for every paper. Use this as a pre-upload control list: prepare the item when it applies, and verify the live SISSA screen before final submission.

If the paper is collaboration-authored, pay attention to metadata. JHEP's author guidance says collaboration papers should use the collaboration name in article metadata rather than inserting the entire author list there, and the full author-list layout has a specific March 2025 note when front matter exceeds two pages.

JHEP's author pages describe papers and technical reports as contribution types. Most authors targeting the journal are submitting a regular paper. The manuscript can be submitted from arXiv or through file upload, and TeX workflows dominate the field.

The file choice affects the review package:

The JHEP template is not a ranking signal and not a substitute for fit. Its value is practical: JHEP says using the style and template can reduce production turnaround for accepted papers.

JHEP publishes a workflow rather than a guaranteed decision clock. Treat this as planning guidance, not a promise: the source-backed hard point is that JHEP says referees should review within four weeks at most after the editor's request, while editor assignment and reviewer availability still create case-by-case variation.

Day 0: submission through SISSA

The author submits through the JHEP website, either by arXiv reference or file upload. The system assigns a preprint number used throughout the editorial procedure.

Days 1 to 7: file and keyword intake

The system processes the submission, checks the files, and uses the selected keywords to assign the preprint to an editor. Compilation problems, weak master-file naming, or mismatched keywords can slow the package before scientific review begins.

Weeks 1 to 3: editor fit and scope read

The editor examines the submitted preprint and decides whether it belongs in JHEP's high-energy physics scope and whether it should go to referees.

Weeks 3 to 8: referee review

JHEP's workflow page says referees should review papers in four weeks at most from the editor's request. In practice, reviewer availability and field specificity can still change the timeline.

Week 8 onward: decision, revision, or rerouting

The editor decides based on the reports. If the paper is sound but misrouted, the author may need to revise for another venue rather than keep pushing JHEP.

The arXiv category and journal claim do not match. This specific failure pattern is avoidable: a paper posted as broad theory but submitted as JHEP phenomenology forces the editor to decide which reader community the authors actually want. Align the arXiv category, abstract, and keywords before submission.

The calculation is complete but the physics consequence is buried. HEP referees can follow technical derivations, but the paper still needs to say what the result changes: a bound, amplitude, cross section, model space, duality claim, observable, or field-theory interpretation.

The paper is really JCAP or PRD. Cosmology motivation does not automatically make a JHEP paper, and HEP methods do not automatically rule out PRD. If the central reader is a cosmologist, an APS field editor, or an astroparticle audience, route accordingly.

The TeX package creates friction. A paper can be scientifically ready and still slow down if the archive does not compile, the master file is unclear, or attachments are not prepared.