Physical Review D Formatting Requirements: Complete Author Guide

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

• Word limit: About 5% of the article length and under 500 words.

• Structure: One paragraph, completely self-contained

• Citations: No numbered references; incorporate source listings directly into the abstract text itself.

• Keywords: Authors provide PhySH (Physics Subject Headings) terms during submission and star one as primary.

• Equations and tables: Displayed equations and tables are not permitted in the abstract.

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: Color figures are free in the online version. Authors may also elect to pay for color in print for PRD (US $1090 for a single figure and $595 for each additional figure) and should indicate at submission which figures are intended for color in print. Color-online-only figures appear in grayscale in print at no charge.

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, 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).

ArXiv citations: In high-energy physics, citing arXiv preprints is common and accepted. The format is: Author(s), arXiv:YYMM.NNNNN. References to e-print archives should not be used in place of primary references, and APS journals do not add arXiv numbers after published journal sources, so cite the published version once one exists.

Collaboration papers: Large experimental collaborations (ATLAS, CMS, LHCb, etc.) are cited in the APS Style Guide form "J. M. Smith et al. (XYZ Collaboration)", with the collaboration name in parentheses after the lead author. The BibTeX entries for collaboration papers follow a specific format handled by INSPIRE-HEP.

APS publishes no cap on the number of references for PRD, and PRD strongly encourages titles in references (authors who use titles should use them in all references).

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: High-energy physics papers posted to arXiv with a primary category of hep-ex, hep-th, hep-ph, or hep-lat are covered by SCOAP3 when published in PRD. Papers posted under other arXiv categories are not.

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.

Charges: SCOAP3 covers the open access APC for eligible papers. Without SCOAP3 coverage, open access carries the 2026 APC of $2,910, and the PRD author page lists no page charges.

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 provide their arXiv ID during submission, or as soon as possible afterwards and before publication, in the APS submission system, and APS checks SCOAP3 eligibility with arXiv. If you're unsure whether your article qualifies, ask the editorial office (prd@aps.org) or APS Help (help@aps.org).

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 the APS Guidelines for Collaboration Submissions (author list preferably in the main text file, with the collaboration name after the author list and before the institutions). Use \collaboration{ATLAS} or equivalent REVTeX commands.

ORCID iDs. APS requires ORCID iDs for all corresponding authors and strongly encourages them for all other authors. 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. Compiling with the reprint option in REVTeX gives a rough guide only: the REVTeX FAQ says it is not exact enough to determine final article length, and APS calculates length as described in its Length Guide. APS says about 5 REVTeX pages is likely to conform for a PRD Letter.

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, follow the APS Style Guide form (arXiv:2301.12345) and cite the published version once one exists.

For Physical Review D-targeted manuscripts, three patterns consistently predict formatting desk-screen failure at Physical Review D (APS). The patterns below are the ones we see most often in our review work.

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. Reference lists should be clean of retracted papers. 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 that PRD editors expect rigorous derivation and explicit comparison to existing high-energy-physics literature. In our analysis of anonymized Physical Review D-targeted submissions,

For manuscripts targeting Physical Review D, four patterns generate the most consistent desk-rejection outcomes.

REVTeX not used or source does not compile cleanly. APS tells authors who submit TeX files to use REVTeX 4.2, and it needs only a PDF for a new submission. Source files are requested at acceptance, where REVTeX or LaTeX is preferred and Word is also accepted. Source files that do not compile cleanly or that skip the revtex4-2 document class slow production. Authors should confirm clean compilation using the REVTeX documentation 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.

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.

Or see example reports before you finalize.