EPL is a letters journal exploring the frontiers of physics.
Key features of an EPL article
The main criteria for papers to be accepted for publication in EPL are:
| Scientific soundness • a manuscript should report important results of substantial research. Unnecessary details should be avoided. Speculative ideas are discouraged, unless some physically sound argument is given in reasonable support. |
| Importance and future impact • results should be novel and of significant importance for the field to which they contribute and possibly to others. At least some indication should be given of a possible impact on the ongoing research. |
| General interest • work should be at the forefront of a field of broad interest, and the results should be put into a broader context of related work. Making them accessible to researchers in other fields of specialization may be achieved by suitable, clearly written introduction and conclusion (if appropriate). References should of course be adequate and representative. |
A letter is intended to be a communication of a new result or finding which merits rapid publication. It is not meant to be simply a short or abbreviated paper. In case a manuscript is found to be acceptable for publication as a regular article, but not as a letter, it may be suggested to the authors that submission to one of the journals that are part of the Mutual Transfer Agreement would be more appropriate.
Articles should contain a clear title, abstract and introduction, accessible to physicists outside the research area of the physics under discussion. Does the introduction explain, in terms accessible to a broad audience, the physics context of the work, why it is important and what has been accomplished? However, the main body of the article should contain enough technical information to enable peers to corroborate results and follow the details of the work described. The article should be likely to be well read and to make a real contribution to the subject area. If appropriate, a conclusion section should be included providing a non-specialist summary of the major points raised in the article, but not just a repeat of the abstract.
Report form
If possible, please indicate your assessment of the article using the boxes provided and justify/detail your choices in the text.
Key points of the referee report
Referees should address a number of key points in their assessment that relate to scientific content and quality, presentation and possible impact to the scientific research field.
Scientific content
| • | Scientific merit: Is the work scientifically rigorous, accurate and correct? |
| • | Appropriateness: Is the material appropriate for the journal? Does the work deviate too far from physics, or contain too little physics, to be considered as inter-disciplinary science publishable in this journal? |
| • | Clarity: Are ideas expressed clearly and concisely? Are the concepts understandable? Is the discussion written in a way that is easy to read and understand? |
| • | Technical: Does the article contain information not known before and how important is this to the research field in question? |
| • | Interest: Is the research presented put in context of the research field as a whole? EPL articles should be accessible to both specialist and non-specialist. |
Quality
| • | Originality: Is the work relevant and novel? Does the work contain significant additional material to that already published? Is this paper likely to be cited in future? |
| • | Motivation: Does the problem considered have a sound motivation? All papers should clearly demonstrate the scientific interest of the results. |
| • | Repetition: Have significant parts of the manuscript already been published? Does the article contain significant new material in addition to that already published? |
| • | Urgency: Articles of especially high quality or interest will be published as soon as possible and may be highlighted in promotional material. |
Presentation
| • | Title: Is it adequate and appropriate for the content of the article? |
| • | Abstract: Does it contain the essential information of the article? Is it complete? Is it suitable for inclusion by itself in an abstracting service? |
| • | Introduction: Is the introduction written in an easy to follow format, with a clear, informative content for a non-specialist? |
| • | Diagrams, figures, tables and captions: Are they essential and clear? |
| • | Text and mathematics: Are they brief but still clear? Is the standard of English acceptable? |
How to return your report
Referee reports should be returned to the Editorial Office as soon as possible preferably using the web-based system.
If you cannot report
If you are unable to report on an article, for example because you feel that you are not sufficiently competent in this area or if you do not have time, please inform the Editorial Office as soon as possible preferably using the web-based system so that the assessment process is not delayed.
In this situation it is very helpful if you can recommend to the Editorial Office the names of one or more alternative experts or pass the manuscript on to a colleague working in the field (please inform the Editorial Office of the new referee name).
General procedure
Papers submitted for publication to EPL are usually sent to two independent referees. If there is sufficient agreement between the referees, the Co-Editor will make his decision immediately. If the two reports are contradictory, the paper will usually be rejected, but the Co-Editor may also contact an adjudicator referee. In case the manuscript needs to be revised, it might be sent back to the referee(s).
Reviewers should take note that their confidential reports are to provide guidance and advice to the Co-Editor concerned. There may be instances when the Co-Editor has sufficient other guidance to overrule the suggestions given by the reviewer. Reviewers should not take this as evidence that their report is being ignored or is of no value. The decision to accept or reject articles for EPL rests with the Co-Editor.
In exceptional cases, the authors may appeal a Co-Editor’s decision on their paper. An appeal must not be simply a request for further scientific review or additional refereeing, or a disagreement with the scientific appraisal of the reviewers. It must be based on whether the editorial processing for the article has been conducted fairly and in a manner appropriate with the guidelines for the journal.