Key time points in the submission process can be referenced as follows:
Received: 13Nov2023 (first submission of initial draft, assigned to reviewers 3 days later)
Decision: 22Dec2023 (received comments from two reviewers, minor revisions)
Revised: 18Feb2024 (revised and resubmitted)
Accepted: 25Mar2024 (editor sought a third reviewer, who agreed and accepted

(0) 讚！ | 磕颜

12.18 submitted
1.2 under review
2.16 major revise (One reviewer completely rejected our work, another gave minor revisions, the editor added a third reviewer who also requested minor revisions)
3.29 reject (After revisions, the reviewer who completely rejected the work maintained their original stance, and the editor rejected the manuscript outright)
The journal process was fast, but unfortunately we encountered a reviewer who completely rejected our work

(1) 讚！ | 宁缺毋滥.

How long will it take to see results after the rework?

(0) 讚！ | 磕颜

Can I take a look at your article? I also work in the field of phonon heat transfer and just submitted an article to PRB

(0) 讚！ | 宁缺毋滥.

Discharge from hospital

(0) 讚！ | xxyh

You should have him submit the article to prb instead of prl, so that there will be one prb publication per year

(3) 讚！ | 齐心

Submitting papers for ultrafast physics, they were reviewed within two days. The editorial processing speed was even faster than the speed of Draven's bloodthirst, but the review speed was slower than my grandmother's running speed. The two reviewers at Physical Review B have a commendable position in the field of condensed matter, and their reviews are quite professional. In fact, there is no need to be afraid of submitting to this journal as long as your work is well-founded and includes some reasonable physical explanations

(14) 讚！ | jigglyboy

A while ago, I got my first PRB in my life and I hope it's not the last one. There were three reviewers in total. Reviewers 1 and 2 had no major revisions and both thought it was acceptable. However, Reviewer 3 gave me the impression that they had heard of my research field and were somewhat interested, but their literature review was stuck at least 30 years ago. They were almost oblivious to some important work in my field from the 1990s and early this century. They kept getting tangled up in a point that had been recognized as not a problem in this field nearly 20 years ago, and it took several rounds of back and forth before begrudgingly accepting my manuscript. Nonetheless, the fact that the manuscript was approved is good, and I thank the editor for their keen insight

(0) 讚！ | Automata

Dear, I suggest you use your own account here.

(0) 讚！ | Bolanster

When submitting a manuscript, may I ask how to designate the supervisor as the corresponding author using my own account? Or can I only submit the manuscript using the supervisor's account?

(0) 讚！ | suvar

PRB does not need a template, just submit directly.

(0) 讚！ | 志在远方

A new partition has been created, and many Qiansheng have been promoted to District 1, while PRB remains firmly in District 2.

(2) 讚！ | will@gf

Just received the review for two months, sigh, feeling mentally exhausted.

(3) 讚！ | Chikohin

I have submitted three articles. The first article was submitted to Physical Review Applied. I met an unreasonable reviewer, who didn’t recognize the correctness of the articles published by our research group (Physical Review Letters and Physical Review B). I appealed. The article was transferred to Physical Review B and accepted directly. I feel the research done in the second article was very bad. I submitted it just for luck. Unexpectedly, it was sent for review. However, the reviewers were obviously not blind, it was rejected. The third article was a pity. It had a combination of experiment and theory. It was submitted to Physical Review Letters, one reviewer’s comments were positive, while the other one’s comments were negative. The objection was relatively strong. After careful revision, the reviewers still not approved it. It was rejected after in third review. It was then transferred to Physical Review B, and we still had to answer the reviewers’ questions. But in the end, it was rejected. To be honest, if we submit it to Physical Review B at the beginning, we think it can be accepted directly, because we mainly do theoretical articles, and the experiments are just icing on the cake. However, all of the reviewers focused on experiments, and the questions raised were strange, which is really difficult to understand. I think the problem with the Physical Review series is that if you submit the article to Physical Review Letters first, and then you transfer it to inferior journals, the reviewers will still treat the issues according to the standard of Physical Review Letters, which is not fair. However, compared with other journals, the editors of the Physical Review series are more intended to decide whether to accept or not according to the opinions of reviewers. Therefore, before submission, you should think clearly which journal to submit. Compared with other journals, Physical Review series journals are more authoritative, but also more difficult. If you want a fast publication speed, and you are too lazy to make contact with the reviewers, you can consider other journals.

(12) 讚！ | liuzhao666

Could anyone who submitted to this journal tell me where can I find the submission template please? I searched it on their official website several times but I couldn't find it.

(5) 讚！ | 梅花

Condensed Dream Journal

(1) 讚！ | PRB

selectd 3 times, two of them, our favorite of condensed matter physics (PRL is too difficult, although love is also difficult).The review is strict, the opinions are professional, the efficiency is high, and I like things with inner physics.Although some cattle are "irrigated" above, the overall quality is still very high.It will be submitted as a major publication in the future.

(6) 讚！ | 匿名

From 10 years to now, there are 4 articles on PRB, 2 of which were published, and 2 were directly edited.The articles that were spiked included APL and APE respectively.I just dropped an article a few days ago, and I was edited to kill it. It was too depressed. I feel that PRB is becoming more and more strict for Chinese people!Dissipate dissatisfaction!

(2) 讚！ | 匿名

is very happy to publish research results on PRB, the whole process is faster.On April 13th, the manuscript on May 10th commented that Xiao Xiu, the question was very professional, and asked a lot of details in theoretical calculations. About 10, it should be peers, which helped us improve the article;The theory of the theory and the results of the experiment, I don't understand it is very nerve-wracking, and I discussed it with the experimental collaborators on the weekend. It is very refreshing. I am particularly pleased to explain a certain result that has been unclear before.We have revised the whole week, and we will return the revised draft on May 18th. May 23rd notice will receive May 28th proof May 31st publishe

(1) 讚！ | 匿名

See the 9th floor saying that prb is more powerful than prl, can't help but say, this is not the case.Many of the articles published on prb were rejected by prl, and reviewers and editors suggested that they would be forwarded by prb.I feel that prb and apl are a grade.We have an article that apl is rejected and transferred to prb for reception.You said that you have a teacher who has a prl for a year, but he regrets that he has no prb.Very simple, what prl to select, directly select prb.Even the prl rejected is likely to be published on the top of the prb

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

issued an article at the end of last year, a small repair a month, modified soon after receiving, to do the phonon heat transfer direction.

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

has selectd 2 consecutively, both of which are the second day of editing. The direct reply is not suitable for publication, so I have to switch to it, and later published it to NJP and JPCM.The editor's screening manuscript is very powerful. I don't know if he can read our articles with his eyes.

(1) 讚！ | 匿名

Both said "interesting", one said adding content, but the other said not enough physical.No complaints.

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

did not review the manuscript and was directly tragic..............

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

Feeling that PRB people are not good, the level of the article is very high, and they can compete with PRL. Some articles are better than the so-called "short, flat, fast" PRL.

(0) 讚！ | 匿名