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

PRL operates the APS divisional associate editor model, and the "With Editor" stage is where that model does its heaviest work. A PRL divisional associate editor is a working academic physicist, not a professional editor; the senior divisional associate editor reads the entire Letter and evaluates physics significance, broad-physics appeal, PhySH classification routing, and 100-word compelling-justification adequacy before deciding whether any referee is invited. A divisional associate editor at PRL typically handles 80 to 150 manuscripts per year and spends 30 to 60 minutes on the initial screening read, fitting PRL editorial work around an active research lab. That working-physicist screen is exactly why the desk decision is fast and why scope problems surface within days rather than weeks.

PRL editorial culture is decisive at the screen: papers that clear the divisional associate editor 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 roughly 35 percent desk-reject decision is made, before any referee is involved. The divisional associate 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 divisional associate editor, the APS Editorial Office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, Supplementary Material, REVTeX template formatting, the required 100-word compelling justification, the required PhySH subject classification, the Data Availability Statement now generated from author-supplied answers, a cover letter directed to the editor, conflict-of-interest declarations, and ethics documentation. Missing required fields are the most common reason a submission never reaches "With Editor."

This is the core of the "With Editor" stage. The divisional associate 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 toward the full three weeks.

In parallel with the divisional associate editor's screening read, ambiguous-fit Letters are discussed across the APS editorial team, where peer divisional associate editors weigh whether the paper fits PRL or a sister APS Physical Review title. This consultation runs alongside the screen and adds 3 to 5 days that are invisible in the portal. If your status sits at "With Editor" near the three-week mark, this consultation is the most likely reason, not neglect.

The "With Editor" stage ends the moment the divisional associate editor either returns the Letter (desk reject), recommends an APS-family transfer, or moves it to referee assignment. The portal label changing from "With Divisional Associate 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: Standard divisional-associate-editor desk rejection per the ~35 percent figure.
• Still With Editor at 3 weeks: Normal upper end; usually 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 puts you at the upper edge of the normal 1-to-3-week divisional-associate-editor screen, and the most likely explanation is that your Letter triggered internal APS 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. Most "With Editor" delays at PRL come from this routing question rather than from a slow editor, because the divisional associate editor model puts a single working physicist on the screen who 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. PRL divisional associate editors manage 80+ active papers per year around their own laboratories; 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 divisional associate 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.aps.org/Submissions; editorial contact prb@aps.org.

Physical Review D (PRD) is the APS cascade for particle physics, gravitation, cosmology, and astrophysics. PRD uses authors.aps.org/Submissions; 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.

The "With Editor" decision is not a referee evaluation; it is an editorial screen against four criteria. The table maps each to what you can confirm while you wait.

In our pre-submission review work with 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 divisional associate 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 divisional associate 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 divisional associate 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 divisional associate editors flag during the editorial screen. 60-day money-back guarantee. We do not train AI on your manuscript and delete it within 24 hours.

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 divisional associate editor finishes the screen.

Of the 104 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.aps.org/prl/authors/editorial-policies-practices, APS editorial documentation (~35 percent desk rejection within 1 to 3 weeks at the divisional-associate-editor screen, single-blind peer review after the screen, 1 to 2 referee model, 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), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with PRL-targeted manuscripts.

Source limitations: public APS guidance can confirm the author portal, the "With Divisional Associate Editor" label, the editorial-screen model, and broad timing expectations, 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 1 to 2 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 enforces a mandatory Data Availability Statement aligned with FAIR principles and a 100-word compelling-justification cover letter screened on every PRL 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."