Reviews of Modern Physics Submission Guide

Source: Clarivate JCR 2024, APS editorial disclosures (accessed April 2026).

Submission caps: RMP proposals run 1 to 2 pages outlining scope, why now, author qualifications, and candidate length. Regular Reviews accept up to 50000 words across 50 to 200 pages with open-ended references (typical 200 to 1000 entries). Colloquia cap at 20000 words across roughly 20 pages with 50 to 150 references. Extensive figures and tables expected. Supplementary information files commonly accept up to 100 MB per upload.

• Day 0: APS authors portal proposal upload. The Authors author instructions portal accepts the 1-2 page proposal (scope, topic framing, author qualifications, candidate length, key references, ORCID identifiers for all authors, conflicts of interest disclosure, funding statement, author contributions for any prior co-authored work in the area), runs APS integrity checks, and routes to the RMP Editor-in-Chief.

• Days 1 to 60: Editor-in-Chief proposal read. The editor evaluates topic timing relative to existing RMP and Annual Review coverage, author authority in the exact subfield (not adjacent), and synthesis-argument differentiation. Most proposals are declined here.

• Days 60 to 540: Invited writing. For accepted proposals, the author team is invited to submit a full manuscript. Regular Reviews take 12 to 24 months to draft; Colloquia 6 to 12 months.

• Days 540 to 720: External peer review. Two or three specialist reviewers spanning the exact subfield, methodology, and synthesis-quality expertise. Reports return on a 8 to 16 week cadence.

• Days 720 to 1080: Revision rounds and publication. APS production typically pushes accepted Reviews online within 4 to 6 weeks of acceptance.

Source: Reviews of Modern Physics author guidelines, APS.

This page covers the pre-proposal decision: whether the topic, timing, and author team support a viable RMP proposal. It does not cover full-submission revision dynamics or post-publication metrics, which belong on separate pages.

Use it when you are still deciding:

• whether your standing in the proposed topic supports a Review-level commission

• whether the topic has timing headroom relative to recent comprehensive reviews

• whether the proposed scope justifies a 50-200 page treatment

Before submitting a proposal, the package should already make four things easy to see in 1-2 pages:

• the proposed topic and its specific framing or argument

• why the synthesis is needed now (a recent paradigm shift, a 5-year accumulation of new evidence, a methodological consolidation)

• what differentiates the proposal from existing reviews in adjacent venues

• why the proposing authors are the right team for this synthesis

At minimum, the proposal usually includes:

• a working title and 250-500 word scope outline

• a "why now" paragraph naming the specific physics inflection

• a paragraph distinguishing the proposal from recent RMP, Annual Review, or Physics Reports pieces

• author CVs (or links) demonstrating primary-research depth in the topic

• proposed length and approximate structure

Common failures here are timing and authority failures, not formatting:

• Recent RMP, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, or Physics Reports coverage of the same topic. The Editor-in-Chief checks. A proposal that overlaps a recent comprehensive review is the most common proposal-stage friction point.

• Author standing is in adjacent rather than central physics. RMP commissions reviews from physicists who have built the topic's primary-research foundation. Proposals from authors known for adjacent work are routinely returned.

• The synthesis argument is missing. "A review of recent advances in [topic]" is not a synthesis argument. Editors look for a specific organization, framework, or framing that the field needs.

• Scope is wrong for the venue. Topics narrow enough to fit in a Physical Review B Reviews piece (~30 pages) often don't justify an RMP Review's length and depth.

RMP is a venue for definitive syntheses, not surveys. The journal's reputation rests on Reviews that establish or reorganize a field's understanding for a 5-15 year window.

The invited-only model: the great majority of RMP pieces are commissioned. Proposals are the path for author-initiated work, but they compete against pieces the Editor-in-Chief is already developing.

The 5-year timing window: unlike Nature Reviews journals' 18-24 month window, RMP's effective timing window is longer because RMP Reviews are deeper. A new RMP review of a topic covered by an existing RMP Review is rare unless 5+ years have passed and a paradigm has clearly shifted.

The authority standard: the proposing author or team must have sustained primary-research publications in the topic. RMP reviews are read as authoritative because the authors built the field they're synthesizing.

The proposal usually needs:

• a synthesis-level argument or framework, not a comprehensive survey

• one defensible "why now" inflection point

• author CVs that establish primary-research authority on the specific topic

• a clear point of view

Ask before you propose:

• could a physicist outside the immediate sub-discipline grasp the takeaway from the abstract?

• has a comparable comprehensive review appeared in RMP, Annual Reviews, or Physics Reports in the last 5 years?

• does the corresponding author have sustained primary-research publications in the exact topic?

• does the proposal articulate a specific synthesis argument, or is it a survey?

If the answers are uncertain, the timing or authority problem is usually more important than the formatting.

Before submitting to Reviews of Modern Physics, a Reviews of Modern Physics submission readiness check identifies whether the package meets the editorial bar before you commit to the submission.

For a broader file-level scan before upload, use the Manusights AI manuscript review to catch proposal-angle, reference-map, and author-authority weaknesses before approaching APS.

The strongest RMP proposals sound like a senior physicist briefing the Editor-in-Chief on a synthesis the field needs, not pitching a topic for promotion.

They usually:

• state the synthesis argument in one sentence

• explain the timing inflection in two sentences

• distinguish from existing reviews briefly

• establish author credentials with primary-research evidence

• propose a working title and approximate structure

If the proposal sounds like the authors are seeking validation rather than offering a synthesis, the response is usually slow.

• Is Reviews of Modern Physics a good journal?

• Physical Review Letters submission guide

Before drafting the proposal, run it through a Reviews of Modern Physics proposal-readiness check to confirm the timing, angle, and author authority case is strong.

Across Manusights submission reviews for physics review proposals targeting Reviews of Modern Physics, three patterns generate the most consistent proposal-stage failures. (Per APS RMP author materials, RMP is built for broad physicist readership, active areas of fundamental and applied physical science, and articles that are more than a catalog of work done.) These patterns are testable in the proposal abstract, section outline, reference map, author CV evidence, cover letter, and candidate figures before you approach APS.

Author authority sits next to the topic instead of inside the topic

For Reviews of Modern Physics proposals, the most damaging pattern is authority mismatch. The manuscript topic may be important, but the corresponding author's primary-research record sits in a neighboring subfield rather than the exact one being synthesized.

RMP Reviews become durable reference articles for physicists, graduate students, instructors, and scientists entering the area; that role makes the author-authority signal unusually load-bearing. Editors and advisors can see the mismatch in the proposal's author paragraph, publication list, reference map, and section outline.

Warning signs include an author CV dominated by adjacent methods rather than the target phenomenon, a proposal that leans on collaborators for the core domain expertise, figures reproduced from another community's framing, and a cover letter that asserts authority without showing the primary-research trail.

Manuscripts with this pattern usually route better to Physics Reports for specialist synthesis, Reports on Progress in Physics for broad but less APS-specific reviews, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics for condensed-matter annual synthesis, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics for astrophysics, Living Reviews in Relativity for relativity, or a Physical Review topical review when the scope is narrower.

The fix is to either recruit a senior co-author whose publication record built the exact subfield, narrow the proposed Reviews of Modern Physics topic to the author's proven core, or choose a venue where adjacent-field authorship is less of a proposal-stage blocker.

Check whether your RMP proposal proves author authority inside the topic →

Recent review already owns the topic

In Manusights reviews, the second repeated pattern is a proposal that arrives after another comprehensive review has already occupied the field's synthesis slot. Reviews of Modern Physics does not need a second literature map unless the new piece reorganizes the field. The timing problem appears in the reference section, topic outline, "why now" paragraph, and proposed figures.

Editors will notice when the first five references include a recent RMP, Physics Reports, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Nature Reviews Physics, or Reports on Progress in Physics article covering the same backbone.

The manuscript components that usually fail are: a generic "recent progress" abstract, an outline following the same chronology as a recent review, figures that reproduce the same conceptual map, and a cover letter that claims growth in publication volume without identifying a new organizing principle.

The fix is to name a real inflection point: a new experimental capability, a theoretical consolidation, a contradiction resolved by recent data, a standards change, or a field split that now needs integration.

If that inflection does not exist, the stronger route is often a narrower topical review, a Perspective-style article, Physics Reports, Nature Reviews Physics, Annual Review, or a specialist journal where a focused update is acceptable.

Check whether your RMP proposal has timing headroom against existing reviews →

Survey outline without a synthesis argument for broad physics readers

For RMP-targeted proposals, the third pattern is a technically competent literature survey that never states what the synthesis will establish. APS RMP article guidance emphasizes that an ideal review is more than a catalog of work done and should provide a framework useful to practitioners and people entering the field.

Editors can see the survey problem in the title, proposal abstract, table of contents, candidate figures, and conclusion plan. Warning signs include section headings that simply list subtopics, references grouped by year rather than by unresolved question, figures that summarize known categories without explaining tradeoffs, and a proposed conclusion that says "future directions" instead of naming the field's open questions.

Reviews of Modern Physics needs a synthesis-level argument: a unified framework, a consensus map, a taxonomy of competing mechanisms, a standards-setting explanation, or a clear statement of what the field now understands differently. If the manuscript remains a survey, it is often a better fit for Contemporary Physics, Reports on Progress in Physics, Scholarpedia-style references, Annual Review venues, or a specialty review journal.

The fix is to rewrite the outline around the conceptual claim, then make the abstract, figures, and reference map prove that claim rather than merely inventory the literature.

Check whether your Reviews of Modern Physics proposal is submission-ready →

How do I submit to Reviews of Modern Physics?

Reviews of Modern Physics is essentially invited-only. The standard path is a one-page proposal to the Editor-in-Chief outlining scope, why now, and author qualifications. If accepted in principle, the Editor invites a full manuscript. Unsolicited full submissions are returned with a request to submit a proposal first.

What does Reviews of Modern Physics publish?

RMP publishes long-form Reviews (typically 50-200 pages) and shorter Colloquia (~20 pages) that synthesize a major area of physics. Original research is not published. The journal serves physicists who want a definitive synthesis from leading authorities in a subfield.

How long does Reviews of Modern Physics take?

Proposal evaluation typically takes 1-2 months. Once invited, full Reviews can take 1-3 years from proposal to publication, reflecting the depth of the synthesis. Colloquia are faster, typically 6-12 months.

Why are Reviews of Modern Physics proposals usually rejected?

Most rejections are timing-related (a recent comprehensive review covers the same ground), authority-related (the proposers lack the standing to write the definitive synthesis), or scope-related (the proposed topic is too narrow or too broad for RMP's mid-to-broad physics audience).

• Reviews of Modern Physics Under Review status