PRL Status Codes Explained: What Every APS Manuscript Status Means

Source: APS Physical Review Letters editorial process documentation, April 2026.

Received

Administrative. Your files passed the format check and the system assigned a manuscript number (typically starting with LY or similar prefix depending on your subfield). This status says nothing about the physics.

If you are stuck at "Received" for more than 3 business days, your files may have a technical issue. Check the APS submission guidelines for file format requirements (RevTeX 4.2 is the standard), or contact prl@aps.org.

With Divisional Editor

This is the desk-screening phase. PRL has approximately 15 divisional editors, each responsible for a specific area of physics (condensed matter, particle physics, astrophysics, atomic and molecular physics, and so on). Your paper was routed to the editor whose expertise matches your subfield.

The editor is reading two things:

• Your 100-word justification paragraph, which must explain why this result matters broadly across physics
• The paper itself, specifically the introduction, results, and figures

The editor is asking one question: does this result have importance beyond the immediate subfield? PRL's defining editorial principle is that a Letter must be of interest to physicists across multiple areas. A technically correct condensed matter paper that only matters to specialists in that niche gets desk-rejected. About 35% of PRL submissions end here.

What a long "With Divisional Editor" period means:

If you are past 2 weeks at this status, it is not an automatic bad sign. Two things cause extended desk review:

1. The editor is consulting a colleague from an adjacent subfield to verify whether the result travels beyond your immediate community. This happens on cross-disciplinary papers.
2. The paper spans two divisional areas and is being transferred to a different editor. If reassignment happens, you will sometimes see the status reset or a new editor name appear in the portal.

If you are at 4+ weeks with no change and no communication, a brief email to prl@aps.org is reasonable.

Under Review

Your paper passed the desk screen. The divisional editor has sent it to 2-3 external reviewers.

This transition is significant. The editor explicitly decided that your justification paragraph was convincing and that the result has the broad significance PRL requires. About 65% of submitted papers reach this stage. You are now in the majority of papers that get a real review.

What happens during Under Review:

PRL sends papers to 2-3 referees who are researchers active in the relevant subfield. APS referee reports are longer and more substantive than typical journal reports: 1-2 pages is common, with specific technical questions rather than generic comments.

Referees are asked to evaluate:

• Scientific correctness and completeness
• Significance beyond the immediate subfield
• Presentation within the 3,750-word Letter format
• Novelty relative to prior PRL publications

PRL asks referees to respond within 2 weeks, though actual turnaround varies. One slow reviewer extends the entire process. SciRev community data (based on approximately 17 author-reported submissions) shows a median of around 5 weeks from submission to first decision, consistent with PRL's self-reported timelines.

For how long peer review typically takes and what causes delays, see the Physical Review Letters review time guide.

What the transition to Under Review signals about your odds:

Before the desk screen: 65% of papers survive (35% desk-reject rate). Once Under Review, the conditional probability of eventual acceptance shifts. Of papers that reach external review, roughly 60-70% are eventually accepted (sometimes after revision). The desk screen does most of the filtering.

If your status says Under Review, you are in the group where the majority of papers get published.

Decision Pending

The reviewers have submitted their reports. The divisional editor has everything they need and is deliberating.

This is almost always a short status. 3-7 days is typical. Unlike "Under Review" which can persist for weeks, "Decision Pending" is a countdown. Check your email. The decision letter arrives same-day or next-day after "Decision Made" appears.

"Decision Pending" does not predict the outcome. The editor is deciding between accept, minor revision, major revision, and reject with equal probability from your vantage point. Positive reviewer reports sometimes get major revisions if the editor sees a gap the reviewers missed. Mixed reports sometimes get minor revisions if one reviewer misunderstood the paper.

If Decision Pending persists for more than 2 weeks, the editor may be seeking a third reviewer's opinion. That happens when reviewer reports are in direct conflict. It is not a bad sign by itself.

Decision Made

Check your email. The decision letter should already be there or will arrive within hours.

If no email arrives within 24 hours:

1. Check spam and promotions folders
2. Log back into the APS portal; your email may have an issue
3. Contact prl@aps.org with your manuscript number

Accept

Uncommon on first submission. Most PRL papers go through at least one revision. A clean accept means the editor and reviewers found nothing requiring change, which typically indicates either a very clean paper or a very experienced author who anticipated and pre-addressed every likely objection.

Minor Revisions

Treat this as an acceptance with conditions. The editor is inviting you to revise, not reconsidering the paper. Address every referee comment specifically, even the ones you disagree with. A clear, respectful point-by-point response that explains your reasoning for not incorporating a suggestion is better than ignoring it. Turn this around in 2-3 weeks.

Major Revisions

The paper needs substantive work before PRL will publish it. 90 days is the standard revision window. The decision letter will specify what the reviewers need to see.

Major revisions are not rejections. Many PRL papers get major revisions on first round and are accepted after one round of revision. Read the reports carefully to identify whether the concerns are about the physics itself or about the presentation and framing. Physics concerns require new experiments or calculations. Framing concerns can often be resolved with clearer writing and additional context.

Do not respond defensively. The most common mistake after a major revision decision: arguing with the referee's significance assessment without providing new evidence. If a referee says the result is not broad enough for PRL, the response must cite specific PRL papers in adjacent areas that your result changes, not just assert that the result matters.

Reject

Reject after desk screen: The result was not broad enough for PRL. The physics may be excellent. The editor's assessment is specifically about the journal fit. Consider Physical Review B (subfield-specific, excellent, 70%+ acceptance rate) or Physical Review X (high-impact, longer format) depending on what the editor's letter says.

Reject after review: Reviewers found concerns with the physics itself, the significance, or both. Read the reports carefully. If the reviewers disagreed, PRL has a formal appeal process where a different editor reviews the decision. Appeals succeed roughly 10-15% of the time and are worth using when a referee made a clear factual error or misunderstood the paper; not to relitigate the significance question.

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Physical Review Letters, three failure patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections. We find these across manuscripts we've reviewed through our PRL submission readiness check, and they reliably predict which papers will clear the divisional editor.

The justification paragraph that argues within the subfield instead of across physics. We observe this in roughly half of PRL desk rejections we see. The 100-word justification paragraph reads like an abstract for a Physical Review B paper: it establishes what the field knows, what the paper shows, and why specialists will care. It does not answer the question the divisional editor is actually asking, which is "why does this matter to a physicist in a different area?" We find that papers whose justification paragraph cites PRL work in adjacent subfields and names the adjacent-field implication clear the desk at a significantly higher rate than papers that argue from within one specialty.

The paper that fits 3,750 words only by compressing the evidence. We observe this in multi-technique experimental papers and in theoretical papers with complex derivations. The main text is 3,750 words but the supplemental is 25 pages. JAMA editors specifically look for papers where the primary evidence lives in the Letter. PRL referees notice when the central claim cannot be evaluated from the Letter alone and the supplemental carries all the proof. Papers where the main text is self-contained, with supplemental used only for extended data tables or secondary calculations, move through review faster and receive fewer requests for restructuring.

The significance claim backed by assertion rather than adjacent citations. We see this pattern repeatedly in revision cycles that drag on. The paper claims the result is important for quantum information, topological materials, or some other active area outside the primary subfield, but the introduction cites no PRL papers from that adjacent area. PRL referees and editors specifically ask for those citations. A two-sentence connection in the introduction citing 2-3 recent PRL papers in the adjacent field often prevents an entire round of revision.

If you are reading this before submitting to PRL rather than after:

Submit to PRL if:

• the result changes how physicists outside your subfield think about a problem
• the full argument fits within 3,750 words
• you can write a 100-word justification paragraph that would convince a physicist from a different area why this matters to them

Think twice if:

• the result is primarily relevant to specialists in your narrow niche
• the paper needs extended methods or supplementary data to be convincing
• the result is incremental within known results rather than conceptually new

Physical Review Letters submission readiness check

PRL referee reports run 1-2 pages. Shorter reports are usually signals, not lazy reviews. Here is what different report types signal:

The most common mistake: arguing with a significance objection using rhetoric. The referee is not objecting to your writing. They are saying the result does not connect to physics outside your subfield. The only response that works is citing specific PRL papers in adjacent areas that your result bears on. If you cannot make that argument with actual citations, the paper belongs in PRB.

APS journals share an internal transfer system. If PRL rejects after review, you can transfer the manuscript to Physical Review B, Physical Review X, or another APS journal without reformatting for many submissions.

PRL to PRX: Your physics is strong but needs more than 3,750 words. If PRL rejected for scope rather than quality, PRX is often correct.

PRL to field-specific journal: The result is excellent physics within your subfield. PRB, PRC, PRD, or PRE depending on your area. Acceptance rates are much higher and these journals are highly respected within their communities.