Physical Review Letters 'Under Review': What Each Status Means and the PRL Timeline
If your PRL manuscript is under review, here is what each status means, the 4-8 week timeline, and what the divisional editor system means for your paper.
Research Scientist, Neuroscience & Cell Biology
Author context
Works across neuroscience and cell biology, with direct expertise in preparing manuscripts for PNAS, Nature Neuroscience, Neuron, eLife, and Nature Communications.
Next step
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Use the guide or checklist that matches this page's intent before you ask for a manuscript-level diagnostic.
Decision cue: Physical Review Letters desk rejects about 35% of submissions within 1 to 3 weeks. If your paper is under review, it has passed the divisional editor's assessment for both technical quality and broad physics significance. PRL's significance requirement is what makes the desk screen harder than PRB's: the result must matter beyond one narrow subfield. If you are past the desk, the divisional editor believes your result has that breadth.
Check your next PRL submission's readiness while you wait.
PRL's review pipeline
Status | What is happening | Typical duration |
|---|---|---|
Received | APS system processes manuscript, accession code assigned | 1 to 2 business days |
With Divisional Editor | Editor reads paper, justification paragraph, evaluates broad significance | 1 to 3 weeks |
Under Review | Sent to 2 to 3 expert reviewers | 3 to 6 weeks |
Decision Pending | Editor reviewing reports | 3 to 7 days |
Decision Made | Check email | Same day |
What makes PRL's process different
Divisional editors, not a single EIC
PRL uses divisional editors who specialize in different areas of physics. Your paper is routed to the editor responsible for your subfield. This means the triage decision is made by someone with genuine expertise in your area, not a generalist scanning across all of physics.
The 100-word justification paragraph
PRL requires a 100-word justification paragraph at submission explaining why the paper meets the journal's broad significance criterion. The divisional editor reads this before the abstract. A weak justification can trigger desk rejection even when the physics is strong.
If you are under review, your justification convinced the divisional editor that the result matters broadly. That is a meaningful signal.
The 3,750-word limit
PRL's word limit (3,750 words for the body, plus up to 2 pages of End Matter) means the paper must be concise. Reviewers evaluate not just the physics but whether the presentation is appropriately condensed. A paper that needs more space may belong in Physical Review B or another full-length APS journal.
What happens during peer review
PRL sends papers to 2 to 3 expert reviewers. The reviewers are asked to evaluate:
- Scientific correctness: Is the physics right? Are the calculations, experiments, or simulations done properly?
- Significance: Does this result matter beyond the immediate subfield? Would physicists in other areas change their thinking or their experiments based on this finding?
- Presentation: Is the Letter well-written and appropriately concise for the 3,750-word format? Does it communicate the key result clearly?
- Novelty: Is this genuinely new, or is it an incremental extension of known results?
PRL asks reviewers to return reports within two weeks, though actual turnaround varies. The total review period is typically 3 to 6 weeks. First decisions (including the desk screen period) arrive in 4 to 8 weeks.
Understanding the decision
- Accept: uncommon on first round. Usually follows a clean revision
- Minor revisions: the paper is essentially accepted. Respond promptly
- Major revisions: substantive concerns. 90 days to revise. Returns to reviewers
- Reject after review: the significance or rigor did not meet PRL's standard. Consider PRB or another APS journal
- Reject at desk: the result was not broad enough for PRL
When to follow up
Situation | Action |
|---|---|
With Divisional Editor for 1 to 3 weeks | Normal desk review. Wait. |
Under Review for 4 weeks | Normal. Wait. |
Under Review for 6 to 8 weeks | Normal upper range. |
Under Review for 8+ weeks | Polite inquiry to prl@aps.org is reasonable. |
What to do while waiting
- do not submit the same paper to another journal
- prepare for the possibility that revision requests may require new calculations or experiments
- if preparing your next submission, check its readiness in 60 seconds
Related PRL guides
Sources
On this page
Reference library
Use the core publishing datasets alongside this guide
This article answers one part of the publishing decision. The reference library covers the recurring questions that usually come next: how selective journals are, how long review takes, and what the submission requirements look like across journals.
Dataset / reference guide
Peer Review Timelines by Journal
Reference-grade journal timeline data that authors, labs, and writing centers can cite when discussing realistic review timing.
Dataset / benchmark
Biomedical Journal Acceptance Rates
A field-organized acceptance-rate guide that works as a neutral benchmark when authors are deciding how selective to target.
Reference table
Journal Submission Specs
A high-utility submission table covering word limits, figure caps, reference limits, and formatting expectations.
Before you upload
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Move from this article into the next decision-support step. The scan works best once the journal and submission plan are clearer.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Start here
Same journal, next question
Conversion step
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.