Physical Review B Submission Process

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.

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.

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.

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]."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

• 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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

PRB is the workhorse of APS, the broadest and highest-volume journal in the family. It publishes 5,077 articles per year, more than any other Physical Review title. If you're doing condensed matter or materials physics and the result needs a full treatment, PRB is where it goes.

Here's how it fits against the other APS journals:

PRB's IF of 3.7 looks modest next to PRL or PRX, but that's misleading. PRB's cited half-life is 14.0 years, condensed matter papers published in PRB keep getting cited for well over a decade. The JCI (Journal Citation Indicator) of 0.67 reflects the lower citation rates typical of condensed matter compared to, say, particle physics or astrophysics. It doesn't reflect quality. PRB is ranked 66th out of 187 journals in its category (Q2), and for most condensed matter physicists, it's the default venue for solid, full-length work.

PRB uses single-referee review for most standard submissions. That's different from PRL (which uses two) and means one person's opinion carries a lot of weight. The editor picks someone with specific expertise in your subfield of condensed matter, not a generalist.

The referee is checking three core things: is the physics correct, is it new relative to prior PRB publications (not just the broader literature), and is the presentation clear enough for the condensed matter community to follow and build on.

Here's what common referee comments actually mean:

One thing that catches authors off guard: PRB referees care about computational details. If you're doing DFT, they want to know your functional, basis set, k-point mesh, and convergence criteria. If you're doing Monte Carlo, they want system sizes and equilibration details. Vague methods sections are the single fastest way to get a negative report.

The PRB drafts that move cleanly are the ones where the condensed-matter question, the real physics contribution, and the numerical or experimental stability are already obvious before review starts. The weak ones often have a real result, but the package still leaves too much uncertainty about convergence, prior-work positioning, or why the paper matters beyond one local calculation or measurement.

Before submitting, check your manuscript's readiness, it takes about 1-2 minutes and flags the gaps referees will notice.