Physical Review Letters 'With Editor': What the Editorial Screen Means

PRL is managed by a professional editorial team of Ph.D. scientists, and the "With Editor" stage is where those editors do their heaviest work. They evaluate physics significance, broad-physics appeal, PhySH classification routing, and 100-word compelling-justification adequacy before deciding whether any referee is invited. An Editorial Board of divisional associate editors, active scientists appointed for three-year terms, may be asked to advise at any stage of the review process and adjudicates formal appeals.

That editor screen is why the desk decision is fast and why scope problems surface within days rather than weeks: APS reports a 2025 median of 7 days to a first decision before review.

PRL editorial culture is decisive at the screen: papers that clear the editors have passed the steepest filter in physics short-format Letters publishing, and the remaining decision shifts from "is this a Letter" to "is the physics correct and important."

"With Editor" is the stage where the decision to send out or desk-reject is made, before any referee is involved. The editor evaluates whether the broad-physics appeal warrants one of PRL's selective short-format Letters slots.

A desk rejection at this screen most often means the editor concluded the work fits better at a sister APS journal (Physical Review A for atomic/molecular/optical, PRB for condensed matter, PRD for particle/astrophysics, PRE for statistical/biological, PRX for broad short-form physics, PRX Quantum for quantum information) or that the broad-physics-appeal bar is not met for the Letters format.

None of this is a referee judgment; it is the editor reading the title, abstract, first figure, and 100-word justification and asking whether a broad physics readership should care.

Before the Letter reaches the editor, APS staff check that the submission meets the minimum standards for peer review (file readability, certain APS style and formatting requirements, ethics and research integrity policies, and the basic structure of a scientific article). The package includes the manuscript PDF, Supplemental Material, the 100-word compelling justification, the PhySH subject classification, the Data Availability Statement generated from author-supplied answers, a cover letter, and conflict-of-interest and ethics information where relevant. Missing required fields are the most common reason a submission never reaches "With Editor."

This is the core of the "With Editor" stage. The editor reads the Letter and evaluates broad-physics appeal, PhySH classification routing, and 100-word compelling-justification adequacy. Decisions are fast at the clear ends of the distribution: an obvious scope mismatch is returned within days, and an obvious broad-physics Letter moves to referee assignment quickly. The middle of the distribution, where the physics is strong but the broad appeal is ambiguous, is what stretches the screen beyond the median.

APS says the PRL editors frequently consult divisional associate editors and other senior physicists informally as needed, and editors of the Physical Review journals consult one another when a paper may fit another APS journal better. This consultation is not visible in the portal. If your status sits at "With Editor" well past the median, this consultation is a possible reason, not neglect.

The "With Editor" stage ends the moment the editor either returns the Letter (desk reject), recommends an APS-family transfer, or moves it to referee assignment. The portal label changing from "With Editor" to a referee-assignment or "Under Review" state is the single clearest signal that your Letter cleared the desk screen and the editorial-screening phase is complete.

• Return within 1 to 3 days: Administrative issue or immediate scope mismatch caught before full screening.

• Return within 1 to 3 weeks: A standard editor desk rejection, which is how APS describes a rejection without external review.

• Still With Editor at 3 weeks: Longer than the APS median of 7 days; possibly cross-editor consultation about APS-family fit. Not a reject signal.

• Still With Editor past 4 weeks: A polite inquiry via the APS portal is appropriate; the screen may have stalled in consultation.

• Status moves to Referees Assigned / Under Review: Screen passed. Your Letter cleared the steepest filter.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from PRL authors during the editorial-screening window. The honest answer: no, 3 weeks is longer than the APS median of 7 days to this decision, and a possible explanation is that your Letter triggered editor consultation about whether the broad-physics appeal fits PRL or a sister APS title.

That consultation is a sign the editor sees real physics worth routing carefully, not a sign of a pending desk reject. Delays at "With Editor" at PRL can come from this routing question rather than from a slow editor, because the editor decides quickly once the broad-appeal question is resolved.

What you should NOT do during the first 3 weeks at "With Editor" is email the editorial office. An inquiry mid-screen adds friction without accelerating the decision. If the status still reads "With Editor" past 4 weeks, a single polite one-line inquiry referencing the manuscript ID is reasonable.

If your PRL Letter is returned at the "With Editor" screen rather than sent to referees, the cascade depends on what the editor cited:

Physical Review X (PRX) is the natural APS open-access cascade for broad short-form physics where the PRL broad-physics-appeal bar is not met but the rigor is high. APS supports manuscript transfer.

Physical Review A (PRA) is the APS cascade for atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

Physical Review B (PRB) is the APS cascade for condensed-matter physics. PRB uses Authors submission portal; editorial contact prb@aps.org.

Physical Review D (PRD) is the APS cascade for particle physics, gravitation, cosmology, and astrophysics. PRD uses Authors submission portal; editorial contact prd@aps.org.

Physical Review E (PRE) is the APS cascade for statistical and biological physics.

PRX Quantum is the APS cascade for quantum-information physics.

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

At this stage no referee has assessed the physics; the editor is running a four-criterion suitability screen on the Letter. The table maps each criterion to what you can confirm while you wait.

Across Physical Review Letters manuscripts, three named patterns generate the most consistent editorial-screen concerns and the most common reasons a Letter is returned at the "With Editor" stage before any referee is invited. The useful point is not just that the portal says With Editor. The useful point is whether the abstract, 100-word compelling justification, PhySH classification, figure sequence, Methods or Supplementary Material, Data Availability Statement, and cover letter already answer the questions a Physical Review Letters editor tests during the screen.

Physical Review Letters narrow-physics framing in the 100-word justification. In Physical Review Letters manuscripts, the 100-word compelling justification often does not carry enough broad-physics appeal for the screen. The abstract may describe a careful condensed-matter, AMO, statistical-physics, particle, or quantum result, but the justification reads like a specialist summary rather than a reason a broad physics audience should care.

Before the screen ends, compare the title, abstract, first figure, and 100-word justification. If only the justification names the broad implication, the editorial-screen package is fragile. The stronger Physical Review Letters package makes the general-physics consequence visible in the abstract and figure logic before the editor reaches the justification field.

Check whether your PRL justification clears the screen→

Physical Review Letters PhySH routing mismatch caught at the screen. In Physical Review Letters submissions, the PhySH classification quietly shapes whether the editor can route the Letter cleanly. We see avoidable friction at the screen when the manuscript's Methods, main figure, and Supplementary Material point to one physics community while the PhySH classification and cover letter point to another.

That mismatch can keep a Letter in "With Editor" longer because the editor needs cross-editor consultation to decide which community owns it. During the screening wait, map the PhySH classification, keywords, title, abstract, and suggested-reviewer logic against the actual method and claim.

Check whether your PRL PhySH routing is screen-ready→

Physical Review Letters broad-appeal gap that triggers an APS-family transfer at the screen.

In Physical Review Letters manuscripts, a Letter can be rigorous and still read as a better fit for Physical Review B, Physical Review D, Physical Review E, Physical Review A, PRX Quantum, or another APS title. The signal is usually visible at the screen: the introduction, main result, figure captions, and conclusion prove a specialized advance but do not show why the result belongs in the short-format Letters slot.

If the editor reaches that conclusion, the screen ends in a transfer recommendation rather than referee assignment. The fastest response is a clean explanation of the broad-physics claim, the exact manuscript locations that establish it, and the APS-family fallback route if the editor concludes PRL is too broad.

Check whether your PRL fallback plan is screen-ready→

This guide tells you what Physical Review Letters editors look for while the manuscript is being screened. The review tells you whether YOUR Letter passes that screen before the decision arrives. We have reviewed manuscripts targeting Physical Review Letters and peer APS venues; the named patterns above are the same ones editors flag during the editorial screen. 60-day money-back guarantee. Your manuscript is not used for model training, and access is limited to the review workflow.

This page helps PRL authors turn a static With Editor label into a concrete screening-window plan: check the 100-word justification, PhySH routing, figure logic, Data Availability Statement, and likely APS-family fallback before the editor finishes the screen.

Of the manuscripts our team reviewed for this Physical Review Letters status-page pattern sample, the strongest screening-window signal was whether the abstract and 100-word compelling justification made broad-physics appeal visible before the editor had to infer it from the technical result.

This page was created from:

• APS's public PRL editorial policies and practices at Journals author instructions

• APS editorial documentation (a 2025 median of 7 days to a first decision before review, single-anonymized peer review after the screen, a model of most commonly two referees, 100-word compelling justification + PhySH classification + data-availability submission requirements)

• a live review of public search results for "physical review letters with editor" queries in June 2026 (where the ranking results were generic editorial-portal explainers from author-services sites rather than journal-specific desk-screen timing)

• Manusights pre-submission review experience with PRL-targeted manuscripts.

Source limitations: public APS guidance can confirm the author portal, the editorial-screen model, and broad timing expectations (APS does not document the portal's status label wording), but it cannot reveal the private screening state inside a specific manuscript record. In practical author terms, the useful task during the "With Editor" wait is to connect the screen to the 100-word justification, PhySH routing, figure logic, and APS-family fallback decisions you can prepare before the editor decides.

For the APS physics landscape beyond PRL, see Physical Review X (broad open-access short-form), Physical Review A (atomic/molecular/optical), Physical Review B (condensed matter), Physical Review D (particle/cosmology/gravitation/astrophysics), Physical Review E (statistical/biological), PRX Quantum (quantum information), and external alternatives (Nature Physics, Science). Once your Letter clears the "With Editor" screen, the next status is referee assignment; the Physical Review Letters Under Review guide covers what happens once referees are invited.

Editors screen and triage Letters before any referee sees them, and the "With Editor" stage is where that triage happens. PRL does not apply biomedical reporting checklists (CONSORT for clinical trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews, ARRIVE for animal research) because those EQUATOR-network frameworks target clinical and biomedical reporting; APS instead requires a Data Availability Statement aligned with FAIR principles and asks authors to provide a 100-word compelling justification at submission.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the PRL broad-physics-appeal-plus-short-format bar before the editorial screen, our Physical Review Letters pre-submission diagnostic flags the justification framing and PhySH classification weaknesses most likely to stall a Letter at "With Editor."