Physical Review B Submission Process
Physical Review B's submission process, first-decision timing, and the editorial checks that matter before peer review begins.
Research Scientist, Neuroscience & Cell Biology
Author context
Works across neuroscience and cell biology, with direct expertise in preparing manuscripts for PNAS, Nature Neuroscience, Neuron, eLife, and Nature Communications.
Readiness scan
Before you submit to Physical Review B, pressure-test the manuscript.
Run the Free Readiness Scan to catch the issues most likely to stop the paper before peer review.
How to approach Physical Review B
Use the submission guide like a working checklist. The goal is to make fit, package completeness, and cover-letter framing obvious before you open the portal.
Stage | What to check |
|---|---|
1. Scope | Complete theoretical or experimental investigation |
2. Package | Submit via APS online system |
3. Cover letter | Editorial triage |
4. Final check | Peer review |
Decision cue: The Physical Review B submission process is straightforward if the manuscript is ready. Most delays come from preparation gaps, not portal problems. The useful question is whether the physics, figures, and data are complete enough that the process does not have to compensate for them.
Quick answer
Physical Review B uses the APS online submission system at authors.aps.org. Upload requires a PDF (generated from your REVTeX or LaTeX source), figures, and a data availability statement. Editorial triage takes 3 to 5 days. About one-third of submissions are desk rejected without external review. Papers that pass triage go to 1 to 2 reviewers, with a median first decision around 60 days.
The process itself is not complicated. What matters is understanding when the editors are likely to stop the paper early and what the review stages actually mean.
Stage | What happens | Typical timing |
|---|---|---|
Upload and assignment | Manuscript enters the APS system, accession code assigned | 1 to 2 business days |
Editorial triage | Editors assess scope, rigor, and whether external review is warranted | 3 to 5 days |
Peer review | 1 to 2 expert reviewers assess the physics and methodology | 40 to 60 days |
Decision | Accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject | Within 1 week of final reviews |
Revision window | Authors revise and resubmit | 90 days for major revisions |
Publication | Accepted paper enters production | 2 to 3 weeks to online |
Before you open the portal
The APS submission system is at authors.aps.org. You need an APS journal account. If you don't have one, create it at journals.aps.org/signup before starting.
Confirm these are ready before you begin the upload:
- manuscript source files in REVTeX (preferred), LaTeX, or Word (.docx)
- a compiled PDF of the manuscript
- figures as separate files if not embedded via LaTeX graphics packages
- supplemental material as a separate PDF if applicable
- a data availability statement describing how others can access the underlying data
- suggested reviewers (4 to 5 experts in your condensed matter area)
PRB strongly prefers REVTeX formatting. If you use LaTeX, run BibTeX before submitting and include the resulting .bbl file. The template is available from the REVTeX home page (apstemplate.tex in the doc/latex/revtex/sample directory).
Step-by-step submission flow
1. Log in and select journal
Go to authors.aps.org, log in with your APS journal account, and select Physical Review B as the target journal. The system will prompt you through the submission form.
2. Enter metadata
Provide the title, abstract, author list, and subject classifications. PRB uses the PhySH (Physics Subject Headings) taxonomy for classification. Choose the most specific terms that describe your work. This helps editors route the manuscript to the right reviewers.
3. Upload manuscript and figures
Upload your source files. For REVTeX and LaTeX, place figures with captions in a figure section after the end of the text rather than distributing them through the body. Tables should appear after the reference section.
If using LaTeX graphics packages to call in figures, the figures must still be included as separate uploads so the system can process them.
Word submissions in .docx format are accepted but less common in the PRB community.
4. Upload supplemental material
Any supplemental material goes as a separate PDF via the "Upload supplemental files" button. Cite it in the manuscript's reference list as: "See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for [brief description]."
5. Complete the data availability statement
PRB requires a data availability statement for all research data necessary to verify or replicate your results. This is visible to editors and reviewers from the start. Options include: data in public repository (provide DOI or accession number), data in supplemental material, data available from corresponding author upon request (with justification), or no new data generated.
Vague statements without a real access path create friction.
6. Add reviewer suggestions
Suggest 4 to 5 expert reviewers. These should be people who can evaluate the specific condensed matter physics in your paper, not general physicists. Editors are not obligated to use your suggestions, but good suggestions help speed up the process.
7. Preview and submit
The system generates a PDF from your source files. Preview it carefully. Check that figures render correctly, equations display properly, and references are complete. You can revise the data availability statement, abstract, and PhySH terms at this stage.
Once submitted, you'll receive a permanent APS manuscript code number within 2 business days.
What happens during editorial triage
This is the first decision point. PRB editors assess whether the manuscript meets the journal's scope and minimum quality bar.
About one-third of all PRB submissions are rejected without external review. Each desk rejection involves at least two editors deliberating. The decision is not casual.
Editors are checking:
- does the paper fit within condensed matter or materials physics?
- is the physics substantial enough to warrant reviewer time?
- are the methods described clearly enough to evaluate?
- does the paper advance understanding rather than just reporting measurements?
Papers rejected at this stage are rarely rescued by resubmission. Of all desk-rejected papers, only about 1 in 10 are resubmitted, and roughly 2 in 100 are eventually published in PRB.
If the paper passes triage, it moves to peer review.
What happens during peer review
PRB typically sends manuscripts to 1 to 2 expert referees. These are condensed matter physicists selected for their knowledge of the specific subfield.
Reviewers evaluate:
- scientific rigor (theoretical or experimental)
- physical significance and insight
- clarity of presentation
- novelty relative to existing literature
- adequacy of methods and computational details
The median time from submission to first decision is about 60 days. Some papers hear back faster (especially Rapid Communications), while complex or controversial manuscripts can take longer.
Understanding the decision
- Accept: rare on first round. Usually follows a clean revision.
- Minor revisions: the paper is essentially accepted pending small changes. Respond carefully but quickly.
- Major revisions: substantive concerns need addressing. You have 90 days. The revised paper may return to the original reviewers.
- Reject: the editors concluded the paper does not meet PRB standards. Check whether the concerns are fixable before considering resubmission.
What the status codes mean
After submission, track your paper at the APS Manuscript Status page using your 7-digit accession code and the last name of one of the first three authors.
Common statuses:
- Received: your manuscript is in the system
- Under editorial consideration: editors are triaging
- Under review: sent to external reviewers
- Review complete: reviewers have returned reports; editor is making a decision
- Decision sent: check your email
If the status stays at "under editorial consideration" for more than two weeks, the paper may be in the desk rejection queue. If "under review" extends beyond 10 weeks, a polite inquiry to the editorial office is reasonable.
Common process problems and how to avoid them
Figures that don't render in the PDF preview
LaTeX figure paths break when the system compiles the PDF. Check the preview carefully. If figures are missing, re-upload them as separate files and make sure the file names match the \includegraphics calls exactly.
References incomplete after BibTeX
If you submit the .tex file without running BibTeX first, references will appear as question marks. Run BibTeX, generate the .bbl file, and either paste its contents into the manuscript or include it via \input.
Data availability statement too vague
"Available upon request" without justification is weaker than editors expect. If data are in a repository, give the accession number. If they cannot be shared, explain the specific restriction.
Revision submitted after 90 days
PRB gives 90 days for major revisions. If you miss the window, the paper may be treated as a new submission and re-triaged from scratch. If you need an extension, contact the editorial office before the deadline passes.
How PRB compares to nearby alternatives
Feature | Physical Review B | Physical Review Applied | J. Phys.: Condensed Matter | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Scope | Condensed matter, full treatment | All physics, short format | Applied physics, devices | Condensed matter (IOP) |
Length | No strict limit | 3,750 words max | No strict limit | No strict limit |
Acceptance rate | ~35% | ~25% | ~40% | ~45% |
Review speed | ~60 days | 4 to 8 weeks | ~60 days | ~45 days |
Best for | Full condensed matter studies | Significant results, broad physics appeal | Device and application work | Solid work, faster turnaround |
Choose when | The physics needs thorough treatment | The result compresses into a Letter | The contribution is practical | The work is good but does not need PRB scrutiny |
Submit if
- the manuscript addresses a condensed matter or materials physics question with real physical insight
- the methods (computational or experimental) are fully described and reproducible
- the data availability statement is concrete
- the paper has been formatted in REVTeX and previewed cleanly
- the figures are clear enough to support the physics without extensive caption reading
Think twice if
- the paper reports measurements without connecting them to physical understanding
- the computational methods are described too vaguely to reproduce
- the work fits better in an applied physics or device-focused journal
- the manuscript was formatted for a different journal and has not been rebuilt for PRB conventions
- the result compresses well into a PRL-length paper (consider PRL first)
Before you submit, check your readiness score with a free scan. It takes about 60 seconds and evaluates methodology, citations, and journal fit.
Sources
On this page
Final step
Submitting to Physical Review B?
Run the Free Readiness Scan to see score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Need deeper scientific feedback? See Expert Review Options
Where to go next
Start here
Same journal, next question
Supporting reads
Conversion step
Submitting to Physical Review B?
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.