The editors of PRL are very corrupt. To reject a manuscript that they do not like personally, editors deliberately fail to comply with PRL Review Procedures. The editors and DAE make a joint peer-review scam, surprisingly supported by Editor-in-Chief

(4) 讚！ | justice

PRL is the most prestigious journal in physics, with a significant impact. The review process is relatively fast, with the first round of comments received in just 2 months, and the paper accepted after 2 minor revisions, making the entire review process 4 months. PRL prefers articles with experimental data and innovative ideas

(2) 讚！ | NagatoYuki

The second PRL took 8 months from submission to acceptance, with the first review taking 3 months, revisions taking 2 months, and the second review taking another 3 months. It must be said that the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers were truly sharp and constructive, and every word used by the reviewers was precise. The revisions included a lot of discussions in the appendix, resulting in a well-formatted 23-page pdf file in Latex

(8) 讚！ | 勤勤恳恳的搬砖小白

During the review period, there is no need to be concerned about the corresponding author's information. PRL does not automatically indicate the corresponding author in the manuscript. After acceptance, you can request to have the corresponding author's information included in the manuscript during proofreading

(1) 讚！ | 林飞岩

Dear experts, I would like to consult about something. After submitting my application, I realized that I am unable to select the corresponding author in the submission system. My mentor is not the corresponding author, but it has already been sent for review. How can I change the corresponding author?

(0) 讚！ | 爱学习的东东

I would like to ask, for the PRL submission system, if a reviewer accepts the review, will the system display it?

(0) 讚！ | yinxu

Submit in April, receive revision comments from two reviewers in July, return in August, and accept in early October.

(3) 讚！ | Fenzhen712

It is not fortunate to encounter a colleague as a reviewer. A reviewer deliberately delays and consumes your time by only providing their review comments on the last night of the two-month deadline.

(2) 讚！ | 今夏有云

First, I would like to clarify that I have not submitted any contributions to this journal. However, peer review requires relevant operations in order to participate, so I understand. Regarding the content: You are absolutely right!! Admirable!

(0) 讚！ | NYCC

PRL Editors, by using their own personal interests and tastes instead of specific standards, to review manuscripts (which is actually a form of unfair manipulation of academic research), will inevitably affect the guidance of research directions in physics and the development of research areas. A wrong research direction can also create many prestigious awards, but it may excessively consume taxpayers' money. This practice is not in line with the spirit of PRL Editorial Policies.

(7) 讚！ | justice

"PRL Editorial Policies and Specific Standards are actually just decorative ornaments."

(0) 讚！ | justice

If the editors do not like your manuscript, they will not review it according to specific standards, and will directly reject it.

(0) 讚！ | justice

On the surface, Physical Review Letters has established a relatively comprehensive review process (PRL Evaluation/Assessment/Review Procedures), where Editors and Referees are required to review manuscripts according to specific standards. However, in reality, it is not the case.

(1) 讚！ | justice

PRL is very innovative but also very fraudulent. The most typical example is the so-called Positive Mass Theorem in general relativity, which is an epic myth in modern physics and mathematical physics. The big shots used complex mathematics that baffled several generations. My math is not good, but I heard about differential geometry, Riemannian geometry, and Spinors, and it scared me. However, after someone pointed it out, I understood that it was completely a story of the Emperor's New Clothes. Mainstream scientists wrote fraud into textbooks, and fraud became truth.

(3) 讚！ | noneed

Two reviewers received the manuscript 40 days after submission. One suggested major revisions, while the other suggested minor revisions, but both stated that the manuscript met the standards of PRL (Physical Review Letters). After the revisions were made, the manuscript was returned for a second round of review 40 days later. One reviewer proposed some further modifications. After further revisions were made, the manuscript was sent back to the reviewers and accepted 8 days later. I am involved in theoretical calculations, and this journal has a very high requirement for innovation.

(11) 讚！ | john585

What I want to ask is, is there also a strict length requirement for the main text of the revision? The length is limited to 3750.

(1) 讚！ | 物理小白***

No, as long as you reply directly to the question, it is fine.

(0) 讚！ | Jake123

Is there a length requirement for the response?

(0) 讚！ | 物理小白***

Posted on January 26th, received first review comments on March 8th, returned after minor revisions on March 12th, and accepted by the editor on March 18th.

(1) 讚！ | Jake123

Return the revised format by mid-January 2021.
Return the editorial comments in April 2021.
Upload the response letter in June 2021.
Receive the editorial comments in September 2021 and accept within one week after replying.

(6) 讚！ | Kuit

Posted at the beginning of June, received review comments at the beginning of July. Two positive and one negative comment. The editor requested major revisions and the revised manuscript was submitted over two months later in February. One week later, we were notified of acceptance. The whole process took four months. Due to the novelty and not very deep theoretical depth of our article, the review speed was quite fast.

(8) 讚！ | HUST_WNLO

Too correct!!!

(1) 讚！ | TVT

Case Study:

Reviewer suggests publishing in the form of a short report.

The author's response to the reviewer's comment: Whether to publish in the form of a short report depends on the editor, not you.

The second reviewer wrote a three-page review, criticizing the previously described "very interesting" article from beginning to end, even questioning the title.

Case analysis:
In this incident, the author did not make any major mistakes, at most, they were a bit careless. In contrast, the second reviewer clearly had a narrow mindset, and the editor's decision showed a close relationship between the second reviewer and the editor, a corrupt network.

In reality, the Physical Review series of journals operate under a system where the editors and reviewers, who have relationships with each other, dominate over the weaker authors. They have the power to do whatever they want, while authors have no say. When will someone address the ethical issues of editors and reviewers with relationships?!

(10) 讚！ | zhutou

One positive, one neutral, one negative in the first review. The negative turns into positive in the second review, but an additional negative reviewer is added in the first review. The third review is sent to a fourth reviewer, who gives a negative review. Then it is rejected without a chance to refute. Afterward, an appeal is made, and the negative editor in the respective field accepts it after reviewing. The whole process takes a total of 10 months.

(17) 讚！ | jason

This comment is very fair. From my personal experience: some truly innovative and groundbreaking articles that genuinely surpass previous theories, if submitted by a newly graduated PhD, are directly rejected by the editors. After multiple appeals, they finally agree to send it for review, but the article is only sent to one reviewer, possibly someone who is being challenged and exceeded by the new theory, and they reject it again with a long and fallacious review. At this point, there is basically no chance of getting published in journals like PRL and PRX. This is the true face of PRL and PRX. It is filled with discrimination against the authors' backgrounds, protection of existing powers in the academic community, and lacks any pursuit and criticism of true scientific truth. There is no self-reflection whatsoever. PRL and PRX are not pure scientific territories and no longer earn my respect. In fact, it is now a very opportunistic and corrupt academic swamp.

(216) 讚！ | PRLKiller