Physical Review B 'Under Review': What Each Status Means

Physical Review B operates the APS divisional associate editor + editorial board model. PRB uses an editorial board of distinguished active scientists serving 3-year terms, selected by editors in consultation with APS units. Each paper is assigned to a divisional associate editor with relevant condensed matter expertise. A divisional associate editor at PRB typically handles 80 to 150 manuscripts per year and spends 30 to 60 minutes on the initial read; PRB divisional associate editors are active researchers fitting PRB editorial work around their own laboratories.

PRB editorial culture is decisive: each desk rejection involves at least 2 editors deliberating. Papers that pass the PRB divisional associate editor screen have cleared the steepest filter in APS condensed matter publishing.

Before the paper reaches external referees, a PRB divisional associate editor evaluates whether the condensed matter significance warrants PRB's editorial slots. About 10 percent of submissions are desk-rejected within 2 to 3 weeks (clear-rejection track); about 1/3 of all submissions are rejected without external review overall (including more extended desk-screen deliberation). Each desk rejection involves at least 2 editors deliberating.

A desk rejection most often means the editors concluded that the work would fit better at a sister APS journal (PRA for AMO, PRD for particle/astrophysics, PRE for statistical/biological, PRL for broad short-format Letters, PRX for broad open-access, PRX Quantum for quantum information, PRApplied for applied physics, PRMaterials for materials) or that the condensed matter priority bar is not met.

The APS Editorial Office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, Supporting Information, REVTeX template formatting, PhySH subject classification (required), data-availability statement (generated from author-supplied answers), cover letter directed to the editor, conflict-of-interest declarations, and ethics-statement documentation.

The divisional associate editor reads the paper and evaluates condensed matter significance, PhySH classification routing, and PRB subspecialty fit across semiconductors, magnetism, superconductivity, quantum materials, electronic structure, soft matter, and surfaces.

In parallel with the primary divisional associate editor's read, each potential desk rejection involves at least 2 editors deliberating per PRB's editorial-rejection mindful-process policy. This two-editor deliberation runs alongside the primary read and adds 3 to 7 days to the timeline that is invisible to the author in the portal. The two-editor deliberation is PRB's distinctive feature: no paper is desk-rejected without at least 2 editor-level reviews.

PRB divisional associate editors typically invite 1 to 2 referees, with referee recruitment typically taking 7 to 14 days. The recruitment window can take longer because referees with topic-matched condensed matter subspecialty expertise are scarce.

Once referees agree to review, the typical PRB peer-review cycle lasts 4 to 12 weeks per referee. Regular Articles receive first decisions in 6 to 14 weeks, with the wide range reflecting referee availability. Letters get decisions in approximately 25 days, with some accepted in as little as one week for fast-moving fields. Referee reports for PRB tend to be thorough; 2000 to 4000 word reports are typical given the condensed matter mechanism complexity.

After reports return, the divisional associate editor synthesizes them. Total submission-to-acceptance commonly runs 4 to 9 months for successful Regular Articles.

• Rejection within 1 to 14 days: Administrative issue or fast-track desk rejection (~10 percent figure).

• Rejection within 14 to 21 days: Two-editor deliberation desk rejection per the ~1/3 figure.

• Still Under Review after 3 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed the two-editor deliberation.

• Still Under Review after 14 weeks: Referee-recruitment or referee-report delay. A polite inquiry via the APS portal is appropriate.

• Status changes to "Decision Pending": Reports are in; expect a decision within 1 week.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from PRB authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 8 weeks at Under Review puts you in the early-to-middle portion of PRB's 6 to 14 week Regular Article first-decision distribution. Reports may still be arriving with the divisional associate editor preparing for editorial synthesis. Most referee-driven delays come from referee-availability variability for condensed matter subspecialty experts rather than slow reviews.

If the portal still says Under Review at the 12-week mark, the most likely explanation is that one of the assigned referees asked for an extension and the divisional associate editor granted it. This is normal practice at PRB.

What you should NOT do during the 8-to-12-week window is email the editorial office. PRB divisional associate editors are working academic condensed matter physicists managing 80+ active papers per year; an inquiry at 8 weeks adds friction without accelerating the timeline.

If your PRB paper is rejected after review, the natural cascade depends on what the referees and divisional associate editor cited:

Physical Review X (PRX) is the natural APS open-access cascade for broad short-form condensed matter papers. APS supports manuscript-transfer with referee reports preserved.

PRX Quantum is the APS cascade for quantum information physics from condensed matter origins.

Physical Review Applied is the APS cascade for applied condensed matter physics.

Physical Review Materials is the APS cascade for materials physics.

Physical Review Letters is the APS broader short-format cascade for broad-physics appeal condensed matter work. PRL uses Authors submission portal; editorial contact prl@aps.org.

Nature Physics is the external Springer Nature top-tier condensed matter cascade. The Nature Physics Manuscript Tracking System at mts-nphys.nature.com handles submission; nphys@nature.com handles publisher-level inquiries.

Nature Materials is the external Springer Nature top-tier materials cascade.

APS asks referees at PRB to evaluate four things specifically. The table below maps each to actionable preparation.

Across Physical Review B manuscripts, the papers that make authors most anxious during Under Review are rarely weak in a simple way. They usually have enough physics to deserve a serious read, but the submission package leaves the divisional associate editor or one referee doing too much interpretive work.

Of the 50+ manuscripts our team reviewed for Physical Review B, Physical Review Letters, Physical Review Materials, Physical Review Applied, and adjacent condensed matter journals, this is the failure pattern we see most often: the scientific result is real, but the submission package does not make PRB's editorial culture easy to satisfy.

Use this page when you need to decide what to improve during the waiting window rather than just refreshing the APS portal. Full Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train AI on customer manuscripts.

Narrow-subfield framing flagged at two-editor deliberation

The most common Physical Review B weakness we see is an abstract that describes a material, device stack, numerical model, or measurement campaign without naming the condensed matter principle that should travel beyond the immediate sample. PRB editors are trying to decide whether the paper belongs in a broad condensed matter archive, not whether the experiment was hard. The fix is not hype.

It is a sharper claim map: what is the mechanism, what prior interpretation does it revise, which figure proves that revision, and what competing explanation remains alive? If your opening paragraph could also introduce a materials-specialist paper with no change in the scientific promise, run a Check whether your PRB condensed-matter significance is clear ->.

PhySH classification and referee routing do not match the manuscript

Physical Review B is unusually sensitive to routing because the wrong PhySH classification can put a quantum materials paper, spectroscopy paper, or computational condensed matter paper in front of referees who evaluate the wrong standard. We often see manuscripts where the methods are sound but the cover letter, keywords, and PhySH terms point in three different directions.

That creates delay and increases the chance that one referee reads the paper as incremental inside a narrow specialty. The stronger PRB submissions make the routing explicit in the cover letter: why this is PRB, why the selected PhySH terms are right, and which adjacent APS title would be wrong.

If the cover letter has never been checked against the abstract, figures, and PhySH selection as one routing package, use a Check if your PRB PhySH and referee-routing package is coherent ->.

Reproducibility evidence is split across too many places

PRB referees often read deeply into sample preparation, uncertainty, simulation settings, convergence tests, and data availability. The failure pattern is not always missing data; it is evidence scattered between the main text, captions, supplement, repository, and methods in a way that makes the central result hard to audit.

Before submission or revision, line up the main claim, the figure that supports it, the control measurement or calculation, the uncertainty estimate, and the exact method paragraph a referee would cite. If that chain crosses five files or leaves one step implied, it is a reviewer-risk issue.

A Check whether your PRB reproducibility package is referee-ready -> will catch the gaps that typically surface only after weeks of review.

This page was created from APS's public PRB editorial policies and practices at Journals author instructions, APS editorial documentation (~10 percent fast desk rejection rate plus ~1/3 overall rejected without external review, two-editor deliberation for each desk rejection, 6 to 14 week first-decision window for Regular Articles, ~25-day decision for Letters with some accepted in 1 week, editorial board of distinguished active scientists serving 3-year terms, 1 to 2 referee model), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with PRB-targeted manuscripts.

For the APS condensed matter landscape beyond PRB, see Physical Review X (PRX, broad open-access short-form), PRX Quantum (quantum information), Physical Review Applied (applied condensed matter), Physical Review Materials (materials physics), Physical Review Letters (broad short-format Letters), and external condensed matter alternatives (Nature Physics, Nature Materials, Science).

The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is top condensed matter Regular Article (PRB), broad open-access short-form (PRX), quantum information (PRX Quantum), applied condensed matter (PRApplied), materials physics (PRMaterials), broad-physics short-format (PRL), or top-tier Nature Portfolio (Nature Physics, Nature Materials).

Referees at PRB typically draw from 1 to 2 condensed matter subspecialty experts. Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any referee sees them with the two-editor deliberation safeguard, and preparing a response template that addresses both condensed matter significance and methodology perspectives accelerates revision rounds substantially.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the PRB condensed-matter-significance bar before submission, our Physical Review B pre-submission diagnostic flags the framing and PhySH classification weaknesses most likely to surface in referee reports.