Physical Review D Formatting Requirements: Complete Author Guide

PRD abstracts are relatively flexible compared to biomedical journals, but there are specific expectations.

• Word limit: No strict cap, but 200-600 words is typical. Keep it proportional to the paper.

• Structure: Unstructured (single paragraph or a few short paragraphs)
• Citations: Allowed but discouraged. Use only when referencing a specific prior result that's essential context.

• Keywords: Not required by the journal. APS assigns PACS and PhySH (Physics Subject Headings) classifications.

• LaTeX in abstract: Allowed. Equations, symbols, and inline math render correctly in the abstract on the APS website.

The abstract should state the problem, the approach (theoretical or experimental), and the main result with quantitative precision. In high-energy physics, this means confidence levels, cross-section measurements, or mass limits. In theory, this means the key prediction or derivation result.

A PRD-specific convention: for experimental papers, the abstract often opens with a one-sentence description of the dataset ("Using 139 fb^{-1} of proton-proton collision data at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV collected by the ATLAS detector at the LHC..."). This establishes the experimental context immediately.

PRD imposes minimal restrictions on figures. The emphasis is on clarity and scientific accuracy rather than rigid format rules.

Figure specifications:

Color figures: APS provides color figures at no extra charge in both the online and print editions of PRD. This has been APS policy for years and removes a barrier that exists at some other physics publishers.

Plot conventions in high-energy physics: PRD papers frequently contain complex data plots with error bars, fit curves, and systematic uncertainty bands. There are community conventions (not journal requirements) that reviewers expect:

• Data points with statistical error bars in black
• Systematic uncertainty as shaded bands
• Theoretical predictions as colored lines with appropriate labels
• Legends that are readable at the published column width
• Axis labels that include units

Feynman diagrams: PRD papers regularly include Feynman diagrams. These can be generated with packages like TikZ-Feynman, FeynMF, or JaxoDraw. Vector formats (EPS, PDF) are preferred. Don't submit Feynman diagrams as rasterized images if possible.

Table formatting: Tables in PRD follow the standard REVTeX format. Use \begin{table} with \begin{ruledtabular} for the ruled lines. Table captions go above the table. For long tables that span multiple pages, use the longtable package.

PRD uses the APS reference style, which is shared across all APS journals (Physical Review Letters, Physical Review A-E, Reviews of Modern Physics, etc.).

In-text citations: Numbers in square brackets, assigned in order of first appearance: [1], [2,3], [4-7].

Reference list format:

[1] A. B. Author, C. D. Author, and E. F. Author, Title of article, Phys. Rev. D 100, 012345 (2019).

Key formatting details:

• Author names: First initial(s) and last name (e.g., "A. B. Smith").
• Use "and" before the last author.
• Journal names are abbreviated (Phys. Rev. D, Phys. Rev. Lett., J. High Energy Phys., etc.).
• Volume numbers are in bold.
• Article numbers are used instead of page numbers for journals that use them (e.g., Phys. Rev. D uses six-digit article numbers).
• Year is in parentheses at the end.
• DOIs are not typically included in the printed reference list but are linked in the online version.
• For arXiv preprints: include the arXiv identifier (e.g., arXiv:2301.12345 [hep-ph]).

ArXiv citations: In high-energy physics, citing arXiv preprints is common and accepted. The format is: Author(s), arXiv:YYMM.NNNNN [subject-class]. If the preprint has been published, cite the published version with the arXiv number as supplementary information.

Collaboration papers: Large experimental collaborations (ATLAS, CMS, LHCb, etc.) are cited as "Collaboration Name (Author list), ..." with the collaboration name appearing first. The BibTeX entries for collaboration papers follow a specific format handled by INSPIRE-HEP.

PRD doesn't cap the number of references. Theory papers typically cite 30 to 60 sources. Experimental papers can cite 80+ due to the need to reference detector descriptions, previous measurements, and theoretical predictions.

PRD's approach to supplementary material differs from many other fields.

Supplemental material: PRD supports supplemental material that is published alongside the article. This can include additional plots, extended data tables, derivation details, and code.

HEPData: For experimental results, the high-energy physics community has a strong convention of depositing numerical results in HEPData. This repository stores the data underlying published figures and tables in machine-readable formats. Depositing in HEPData isn't a PRD requirement, but it's expected by the community and increasingly by reviewers.

Code and analysis preservation: The physics community uses platforms like GitHub, Zenodo, and CERN's analysis preservation tools. PRD encourages authors to provide links to public code repositories when the analysis involves custom software.

Ancillary files: PRD allows authors to attach ancillary files to the arXiv submission. Since virtually all PRD papers appear on arXiv, ancillary files (supplementary plots, data files, Mathematica notebooks) are often hosted there rather than through the journal's own supplementary system.

For very large datasets (collision data, simulation samples), authors should reference the data's location in CERN's open data portal or equivalent repositories rather than trying to attach them to the paper.

SCOAP3 (Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics) is a funding model that covers open access publication costs for eligible articles. This affects PRD submissions in several ways:

Eligibility: Articles in high-energy physics (particle physics, nuclear theory, lattice gauge theory, and related subfields) are typically covered by SCOAP3. Articles in gravitational physics, astrophysics, or condensed matter topics within PRD may not be covered.

License: SCOAP3-funded articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Non-SCOAP3 articles may be published under APS's standard copyright transfer.

Page charges: SCOAP3 coverage eliminates page charges for the author. Without SCOAP3 coverage, APS charges for pages beyond a free allowance (the specific threshold and rate change periodically).

Formatting impact: SCOAP3 compliance doesn't change the formatting requirements. Your manuscript follows the same REVTeX template and style guidelines regardless of SCOAP3 status. The SCOAP3 designation is handled administratively during submission and production.

Authors should select the appropriate funding option during submission in APS's PROLA submission system. If you're unsure whether your article qualifies for SCOAP3, the editorial office can advise based on the paper's subject classification.

These are the details that experienced PRD authors know:

No "Introduction" section label is optional. Unlike some journals, PRD papers typically do label their Introduction section. The standard structure is: I. Introduction, II-IV. Main sections, V. Conclusions/Summary, followed by Acknowledgments, Appendices, and References.

Roman numeral section numbering. PRD uses Roman numerals for sections (I, II, III) and uppercase letters for subsections (A, B, C). This is standard APS formatting handled automatically by REVTeX.

Acknowledgments placement. The Acknowledgments section appears after the last main-text section but before any appendices and the references. In REVTeX, use \begin{acknowledgments}...\end{acknowledgments} (note: American spelling with no "e").

Appendices. Appendices appear after Acknowledgments and before References. In REVTeX, use \appendix followed by \section{...} for each appendix. Appendices are labeled A, B, C, etc. Equations in appendices are numbered as (A1), (A2), etc.

Author affiliations. REVTeX handles author-affiliation linking through superscript numbers. For large collaboration papers, the author list follows specific conventions (collaboration name first, author list in a footnote or appendix). Use \collaboration{ATLAS} or equivalent REVTeX commands.

ORCID iDs. APS encourages but doesn't strictly require ORCID iDs. The corresponding author is expected to provide one. The REVTeX template supports ORCID through the \orcid{} command.

eprint numbers. APS journals display the arXiv eprint number on the published article page. When submitting, you can provide the arXiv identifier, and it will be linked in the published version.

Length estimates. To estimate your published page count, compile with the reprint option in REVTeX. A single-column preprint page corresponds to roughly half a two-column published page. This helps you gauge potential page charges.

1. REVTeX version. Use revtex4-2, not revtex4-1 or revtex4. Outdated versions cause compilation warnings and formatting mismatches.

1. BibTeX style. Use apsrev4-2.bst for the APS reference format. Generic BibTeX styles will not produce correct APS formatting.

1. Acknowledgments spelling. The REVTeX environment uses acknowledgments (American English, no "e"). Using acknowledgements will either cause an error or produce incorrect formatting.

1. Figure format. Use vector formats (EPS, PDF) for all plots and diagrams. Rasterized plots at low resolution are a common reviewer complaint.

1. ArXiv preprint format. When citing arXiv preprints, include the subject classification in square brackets: arXiv:2301.12345 [hep-ph].

In our pre-submission review work on Physical Review D-targeted manuscripts, three patterns consistently predict formatting desk-screen failure at Physical Review D (APS). 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 D editors move fastest on manuscripts whose contribution is obviously aligned with particle physics, cosmology, or gravitation advance with full theoretical or observational characterization. The named failure pattern: preliminary derivation lacking explicit comparison to existing PRD literature extends revision rounds. Check whether your abstract reads to Physical Review D's scope

Methods package incomplete for the journal's reviewer pool. Physical Review D reviewers expect specific methodological detail. Observational papers without numerical-validation extension extend reviewer consultation. Check if your methods package is reviewer-complete

Reference-list and clean-citation failure mode. Editorial team at Physical Review D (APS) screens reference lists for retracted-paper inclusion. Recent retractions in the Physical Review D corpus we audit include 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.105041, 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.085306, and 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.044308. 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 D (APS). Of the manuscripts our team screened before submission to Physical Review D and peer venues in 2025, the editorial-culture mismatch most consistent across the cohort is prd divisional associate editors expect rigorous derivation and explicit comparison to existing high-energy-physics literature. In our analysis of anonymized Physical Review D-targeted submissions, Recent retractions in the Physical Review D corpus include 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.105041, 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.085306, and 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.044308.

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

REVTeX not used or source does not compile cleanly. Physical Review D requires manuscripts prepared using the REVTeX 4.2 document class. Unlike general physics journals that accept Word, APS journals require LaTeX throughout the submission and review process. Manuscripts submitted in Word, in plain LaTeX without the revtex4-2 document class, or with source files that produce compilation errors are returned before editorial assessment. Authors should confirm clean compilation using the REVTeX author guide before uploading source files.

Phenomenological claims not connected to experimental observables or existing measurement constraints. Physical Review D covers particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology. Reviewers for PRD theoretical submissions evaluate whether new model predictions are expressed in terms of observable quantities and compared to existing experimental constraints from LHC, dark matter experiments, gravitational wave detectors, or CMB measurements. Manuscripts that propose new models without deriving experimental signatures or checking consistency with current experimental bounds are asked to revise before review.

Monte Carlo or lattice QCD results not documenting systematic uncertainties. For computational high-energy physics manuscripts, PRD reviewers require complete documentation of systematic uncertainties: lattice spacing, finite volume effects, extrapolations in quark mass, and statistical convergence for Monte Carlo calculations. Manuscripts that quote statistical uncertainties without discussing systematic error budgets are flagged for revision. The PRD author guidelines state that systematic uncertainties must be itemized and estimated.

Overlap with arXiv preprint not managed appropriately. High-energy physics authors universally post to arXiv before journal submission. PRD is comfortable with this. However, a common issue arises when the submitted manuscript has diverged significantly from the arXiv version (additional results, different conclusions) without the arXiv version being updated. Reviewers who access the arXiv version and find discrepancies flag this for clarification before review proceeds.

A Physical Review D formatting and readiness check evaluates manuscript structure, REVTeX compliance, and experimental constraint documentation against these desk-rejection patterns before you submit.