Physical Review B Formatting Requirements: Complete Author Guide

PRB's abstract conventions are straightforward, reflecting physics publishing norms.

• Word limit: No strict limit, but approximately 500 words maximum for Regular Articles
• Structure: Unstructured (single paragraph)
• Citations: Not allowed in the abstract (with rare exceptions for PACS/subject codes)
• Math: Equations in the abstract are acceptable and common in PRB

The abstract should state the problem, summarize the approach, and present the main results. In condensed matter physics, abstracts often include specific numerical results ("We find a transition temperature of 42 K" or "The band gap narrows by 0.3 eV under 5% strain").

For Letters, the abstract should be shorter (approximately 150 words) and focus on the single main result that justifies rapid publication.

PACS numbers and subject areas: PRB used to require PACS (Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme) numbers. This system has been replaced by a subject area classification selected during submission. You don't need to include PACS numbers in the manuscript itself.

PRB has relatively flexible figure requirements compared to Elsevier or Wiley journals. The physics community has long-established conventions for figure quality, and PRB follows them.

Figure specifications:

EPS is the preferred figure format. This is a legacy of the physics community's long relationship with LaTeX and PostScript. While PNG and JPEG are accepted, EPS files integrate most cleanly with REVTeX and produce the best output. If you're generating figures from matplotlib, gnuplot, or similar tools, export directly to EPS or PDF.

Color policy: PRB publishes color figures free of charge online. For the print edition, there's a per-figure color charge. Most authors choose "color online, grayscale in print" to avoid the fee. If you go this route, make sure your figures are interpretable in grayscale. Use different line styles (solid, dashed, dotted) in addition to colors, and avoid relying solely on color to distinguish data series.

Table formatting:

• Use LaTeX tabular or table environments
• Every column needs a header
• Use \hline sparingly (top, below header, bottom)
• Units in column headers, not in individual cells
• Notes below tables using \footnote or manual superscripts

PRB uses the APS reference style. If you're using REVTeX with BibTeX (which you should be), the formatting is handled automatically.

In-text citations: Superscript numbers, e.g., "as shown previously^{1,2}" or bracketed numbers [1,2] depending on REVTeX options. The default is superscript.

Reference list format (generated by BibTeX):

[1] A. B. Author and C. D. Author, Title of article, Phys. Rev. B 100, 123456 (2019).

Key formatting details:

• Author names: First initials then last name (A. B. Smith)
• Journal titles abbreviated per APS conventions
• Volume in bold
• Page or article number followed by year in parentheses
• DOIs included automatically by modern BibTeX styles
• For books: Author, Title (Publisher, City, Year)
• For preprints: Author, arXiv:XXXX.XXXXX

The APS BibTeX style file (apsrev4-2.bst) handles all of this. Don't format references manually. Use a .bib file and let BibTeX do the work.

One important detail: PRB accepts and cites arXiv preprints in the reference list. This is standard practice in physics. If a paper is on arXiv but not yet published, cite the arXiv identifier. If it's been published, cite the journal version and optionally include the arXiv number.

There's no formal reference cap. Regular Articles commonly cite 30-60 references. Theoretical and review-like papers may cite 100+. Letters typically cite 20-30.

APS handles Supplemental Material differently from Elsevier or Wiley. The material is hosted on the APS server and linked from the article page, but it's not typeset by APS.

What goes in Supplemental Material:

• Extended derivations and mathematical proofs
• Additional figures (band structures, phase diagrams, convergence tests)
• Computational details (pseudopotential parameters, convergence criteria, code versions)
• Raw data tables
• Video files (simulations, experimental processes)

Format requirements:

• Submit as a self-contained PDF (for text, figures, and tables)
• Use your own numbering (Fig. S1, Table S1, Section S1)
• Maximum 10 MB per file
• The PDF is published as-is, without APS typesetting
• Must be cited in the main text

Because APS doesn't typeset the Supplemental Material, it's your responsibility to make it look professional. Use the same REVTeX template for the supplement as for the main text. Include a title, author list, and clear section structure.

EPAPS (Electronic Physics Auxiliary Publication Service): This is APS's legacy system for supplementary data. You'll still see references to EPAPS in older papers, but the current system is simply called "Supplemental Material." Don't worry about EPAPS for new submissions.

A practical note: PRB reviewers have access to Supplemental Material during review. Some reviewers read it carefully; others don't. Don't put information in the supplement that's essential for understanding the main results. If a reviewer needs to check the supplement to follow your argument, that content probably belongs in the main paper.

PRB uses the APS submission system at https://authors.aps.org.

Required components:

• Manuscript source files (.tex, .bib, figure files)
• Compiled PDF (generated from your LaTeX source)
• Supplemental Material (if any)
• Cover letter (optional but recommended for Letters)

APS-specific requirements:

• Author ORCID: Encouraged for all authors, required for the corresponding author
• Funding information: Must be included in the Acknowledgments section
• Data availability: APS encourages (but doesn't strictly require) a data availability statement

Length check for Letters: The submission system will flag Letters that exceed 4 published pages. You'll see a warning, and the editor will verify the page count before sending for review.

Embargo policy: APS allows posting of preprints on arXiv before, during, and after the review process. There's no conflict between arXiv posting and PRB submission. Most PRB papers appear on arXiv simultaneously with or before submission.

These are the formatting details that experienced PRB authors know:

REVTeX is not optional. You can technically submit in Word, but don't. The production workflow, page count estimation, and reference formatting all assume REVTeX. Using it saves you and the editorial team significant effort.

Article numbers replaced page numbers. PRB switched from page numbers to article numbers in 2019. A reference to a 2020 paper looks like "Phys. Rev. B 101, 045101 (2020)" where 045101 is the article number. This is handled automatically by BibTeX with current .bst files.

No explicit Introduction heading. Following APS convention, PRB papers typically start with an unlabeled introductory section. The first heading is usually Section II (Methods, Model, Theory, etc.). This mirrors Nature's convention of omitting the "Introduction" heading.

Equation formatting matters. PRB is a physics journal. Equations are first-class content, not appendages. Number all important equations. Use \begin{equation} for standalone equations and \begin{align} for multi-line equations. Don't use $$...$$ (it's deprecated in LaTeX2e).

Appendices are common. PRB papers frequently include one or more appendices for detailed derivations, proofs, or extended analysis. These appear after the main text and before the references. Use \appendix followed by \section{Title} in REVTeX.

Color figure caution for print. Design figures to be readable in grayscale if you're choosing "color online, grayscale in print." PRB's production team will convert your RGB figures to grayscale for print, and they won't check whether the conversion preserves readability.

Two-column vs single-column figures. Use figure for single-column and figure for double-column (full-width) figures. Place figure environments at the top of the page for best results.

These trip up PRB authors regularly:

1. REVTeX version. Use REVTeX 4.2, not 4.1 or earlier. Older versions are still in some institutional templates but are missing current APS formatting options.

1. BibTeX style file. Use apsrev4-2.bst, not apsrev4-1.bst or generic styles. The older style files don't handle article numbers or DOIs correctly.

1. Figure format. EPS is preferred. If you submit JPEG files with compression artifacts, reviewers and editors will notice. Export publication-quality vector graphics.

1. Letter page count. 4 published pages is strict. Compile with the reprint option to check. Don't rely on the preprint (double-spaced) page count.

1. Supplemental Material formatting. APS publishes it as-is. If your supplemental PDF has typos, bad figure quality, or inconsistent formatting, that's what readers see.

In our pre-submission review work on Physical Review B-targeted manuscripts, three patterns consistently predict formatting desk-screen failure at Physical Review B (PRB). The patterns below are the same ones Hugues Chate and outside reviewers flag at first-pass triage.

Scope-fit ambiguity in the abstract. Physical Review B editors move fastest on manuscripts whose contribution is obviously aligned with condensed-matter physics advance with full theoretical or experimental characterization. The named failure pattern: papers with preliminary derivation lacking explicit comparison to existing PRB literature extend revision rounds. Check whether your abstract reads to Physical Review B's scope

Methods package incomplete for the journal's reviewer pool. Physical Review B reviewers expect specific methodological detail. Computational-only papers without experimental validation extend reviewer consultation. Check if your methods package is reviewer-complete

Reference-list and clean-citation failure mode. Editorial team at Physical Review B (PRB) screens reference lists for retracted-paper inclusion. Recent retractions in the Physical Review B corpus we audit include 10.1103/PhysRevB.107.165141, 10.1103/PhysRevB.105.165306, and 10.1103/PhysRevB.108.144308. Citing any of these without a retraction-notice acknowledgment is an automatic desk-screen flag. Check whether your reference list is clean against Crossref + Retraction Watch

Manusights submission-corpus signal for Physical Review B (PRB). Of the manuscripts our team screened before submission to Physical Review B and peer venues in 2025, the editorial-culture mismatch most consistent across the cohort is prb divisional associate editors expect rigorous derivation and explicit comparison to existing condensed-matter literature; preliminary claims extend revision rounds. In our analysis of anonymized Physical Review B-targeted submissions, Recent retractions in the Physical Review B corpus include 10.1103/PhysRevB.107.165141, 10.1103/PhysRevB.105.165306, and 10.1103/PhysRevB.108.144308.

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Physical Review B, four patterns generate the most consistent desk-rejection outcomes.

REVTeX format not used or LaTeX compilation produces errors. Physical Review B requires manuscripts prepared using the REVTeX 4.2 document class, the standard APS LaTeX package. Manuscripts submitted in plain LaTeX, Word, or with REVTeX formatting errors that prevent compilation are returned before review. The APS provides a REVTeX 4.2 guide and author template that handles APS reference formatting, PACS codes, and two-column layout. Submitting without checking that the REVTeX source compiles cleanly is the most common avoidable technical error.

Scope ambiguity between PRB and Physical Review Letters. Physical Review B covers condensed matter physics, materials physics, and electronic structure: a well-defined but broad scope. A common submission error is sending a result that is either too incremental for PRB (better suited for lower-impact journals in the APS family) or of such broad interest that the authors should have targeted PRL. Editors evaluate whether the advance is significant for the condensed matter or materials community specifically, and whether it merits a full paper. Brief reports in PRB have a 4-page limit; letters-quality work should go to PRL.

Computational papers lacking full methodological transparency. Physical Review B reviewers expect complete specification of all DFT functionals, k-point sampling, cutoff energies, pseudopotential sources, and convergence criteria for electronic structure calculations. Manuscripts that describe the software used (VASP, Quantum ESPRESSO, Wien2k) without specifying the computational parameters are flagged for Methods revision. For materials property calculations, the crystal structure, space group, and Wyckoff positions must be provided or referenced to an open database (ICSD, Materials Project) with the entry identifier.

Theoretical results not compared to available experimental data. For theoretical or computational condensed matter papers, PRB reviewers assess whether the authors have compared their predictions to available experimental measurements, even if the comparison reveals discrepancies worth explaining. Manuscripts that present theoretical calculations as standalone contributions without contextualizing against experimental measurements in the literature are asked to address this gap. If experimental data are genuinely unavailable, the authors should state this explicitly and explain why.

A Physical Review B formatting and readiness check evaluates manuscript structure, REVTeX compliance, and computational methodology completeness against these desk-rejection patterns before you submit.