On March 3 of this year, the Editors of Physical Review A sent a survey to over 5700 of our referees and authors in order to obtain feedback on the journal. We were very pleased with the response rate of over 30%, and on behalf of the journal we would like to thank all those who took the time to respond. The purpose of this Editorial is to report on the results of the survey, and the changes being made at Physical Review A in response.
The survey contained both a structured part with multiple-choice answers and a free-form part. The results for the structured part can be seen in their entirety via http://pra.aps.org/survey/. Some of the key results are:
• Physical Review A is perceived as being among the top AMO physics journals (strong agreement).
• There is strong support for the policy of rejecting a substantial fraction of papers (up to 20%) without external review.
• There is strong support for a policy to exert more pressure on authors to improve the quality of the English.
• There is substantial support for the idea of sending manuscripts to more than one referee, even though it may delay processing.
• In contradiction to this, a recurrent theme in the free-form comments is that more should be done to speed up the time to receive a referee report.
Concerning the first point, it is certainly our intention to maintain the high standing of Physical Review A throughout the atomic, molecular and optical physics community, and to lead the way in introducing changes in an age of electronic publication. That is in part the purpose of this survey.
Concerning rejection of manuscripts without external review, this was an initiative begun by Physical Review Letters in 2004 and subsequently adopted by Physical Review A and the other Physical Review journals. The purpose is both to reduce the workload for our overworked referees, and to give authors an early indication if their paper is unlikely to receive a favorable review so that they can promptly seek publication elsewhere. Assuming that the present mix of papers persists, the aim is to reach a level of approximately 20% of papers rejected without external referee reports. In 2008, 487 manuscripts (16.5%) out of 2952 submissions were initially rejected without review. Of these, 10 were eventually accepted after substantial improvements to the initial submission. The usual appeals process is available if authors feel that they have not been properly understood, or unfairly treated. Very few of these appeals (less than 1%) have been successful. In fact, the number of appeals seems to be far less if authors receive a prompt rejection, rather than having to wait several weeks for an unfavorable referee report.
The question of improving the quality of the English is not easy to answer because we lack the resources to do a substantial amount of textual improvement, and we are reluctant to ask our referees to deal with extensive language problems. Our main response at the moment is to be more diligent about returning manuscripts to authors with the request that they consult a colleague who is fluent in English to assist them with the necessary revisions. Unfortunately, if the English does not eventually reach an acceptable level, we will have to reject the paper.
Perhaps the most difficult issue to resolve is the question of requiring two referees, and how it should be implemented. There is of course a trade-off between the number of referee reports and the speed of response back to authors. At present, two referee reports are required only for Rapid Communications (the same as for Physical Review Letters). Otherwise, a second referee is consulted only if the first referee report is not adequate, or there is a conflict between the authors and the referee that cannot be otherwise resolved. For the present, we will continue to use a single referee in most cases, with possible exceptions for papers that may prove to be controversial or other special circumstances.
Several other suggestions were received that deserve careful consideration, such as a more colorful layout format for the journal, full titles of papers in the references, improved transmission of final decisions to the referees, and improved communications with the authors. A particularly interesting suggestion for future consideration is the establishment of an APS web site where readers and authors could post their comments and replies on published papers.
Thanks to all for your help and support with this survey project, and for the many interesting ideas and suggestions that have resulted.
