Peer Review Process at Progress in Physics
Rigorous, Fair, and Efficient Quality Assurance
Progress in Physics, a comprehensive academic journal sponsored by the Chinese Physical Society, is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and academic quality. We have established a transparent and standardized peer review system to ensure that every published article undergoes rigorous screening, providing the physics community with trustworthy research outcomes.
Our Review Model
We use single-blind peer review : Reviewers know the authors' identities, but authors remain anonymous to the reviewers. This approach ensures objectivity in evaluation while enabling reviewers to fully understand the research background and provide more targeted feedback.
Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers, with a third expert consulted when necessary. All reviewers are active extensive researchers with established track records in the relevant area.
From Submission to Publication
Step 1: Submission Acknowledgment (1–3 working days)
Authors may check the status of their manuscript using the manuscript ID in the online submission system.
Step 2: Initial Check (within about a week)
we check whether the paper fits our scope, meets formatting requirements Papers that fall outside our scope or have serious formatting issues are returned to authors at this stage; the rest move forward to external review.
Step 3: External Review (within about 30 days)
The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors invite domain experts to conduct in-depth evaluation. Reviewers assess manuscripts across five dimensions:
We do not use rigid scoring rubrics; rather, we ask reviewers to provide a narrative assessment and a clear recommendation.
Step 4: Editorial Decision (within 45 days of submission)
Based on reviewers' comments, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of four decisions:
|
Decision Type |
Description |
Time frame |
|
Accept |
Excellent quality; no revision required |
— |
|
Minor Revision |
Minor improvements needed, typically formatting or language |
About two weeks |
|
Major Revision |
Substantial changes or additional experiments required |
About a month |
|
Reject |
Does not meet journal standards |
— |
Step 5: Revision and Re-review
If revision is required, authors receive anonymous reviewer comments and an editorial guidance letter. Revised manuscripts must include point-by-point responses to all comments, indicating where and how changes were made. Major revisions are typically returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation to ensure quality.
Step 6: Production and Publication (about 30 days)
Accepted manuscripts enter the production stage, including language polishing, formatting, and reference verification. After authors approve the galley proofs, articles are published Online First with a DOI assigned, and later included in a specific issue upon formal publication.
The complete cycle from submission to publication averages 3 months.
Review Criteria: Five-Dimensional Quality Assessment
Our journal has established scientific evaluation standards to ensure comprehensive and consistent assessment:
Reviewers must provide scores and specific explanations for each criterion, avoiding vague generalizations.
Reviewer Ethics: What We Ask of Reviewers
Reviewers are crucial to ensuring academic quality. Our journal imposes strict ethical requirements:
Author Rights and Recourse