Progress in Physics

Peer Review Process

  • 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.

    I. Review System: Single-Blind Review by Expert Panels

    Our journal employs a single-blind peer review system. Manuscripts are assigned to experts in relevant fields by the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors. Reviewers are aware of 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 senior scholars with extensive research experience and academic judgment in their respective fields.

    II. Complete Workflow: From Submission to Publication

    Step 1: Submission Acknowledgment (1–3 Working Days)

    Upon submission through our online system, the Editorial Office will send a confirmation email with a unique manuscript ID within 3 working days. Authors may use this ID to track their manuscript status at any time.

    Step 2: Initial Check (7 Working Days)

    The Editorial Office conducts preliminary screening, including:

    • Scope alignment with journal aims
    • Format compliance
    • Ethical compliance review
    • Plagiarism detection (using iThenticate)

    Manuscripts failing the initial check will be rejected or recommended for transfer to other journals. Those passing this stage proceed to external peer review.

    Step 3: External Review (30 Days)

    The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors invite domain experts to conduct in-depth evaluation. Reviewers assess manuscripts across five dimensions:

    • Originality (25%): Whether the research presents novel contributions
    • Scientific Rigor (25%): Whether methods are reliable and conclusions valid
    • Significance (20%): Impact on the field of physics
    • Clarity (15%): Logical structure and clear presentation
    • Literature Citation (15%): Appropriate acknowledgment of prior work

    Reviewers must submit detailed reports within the specified timeframe, including overall evaluation, specific revision suggestions, and final recommendations.

    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

    Timeframe

    Accept

    Excellent quality; no revision required

    —

    Minor Revision

    Minor improvements needed, typically formatting or language

    14 days

    Major Revision

    Substantial changes or additional experiments required

    30 days

    Reject

    Does not meet journal standards

    —

    We commit to delivering the first decision within 45 days of submission, with an actual average of approximately 30 days.

    Step 5: Revision and Re-evaluation

    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 (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.

    III. Review Criteria: Five-Dimensional Quality Assessment

    Our journal has established scientific evaluation standards to ensure comprehensive and consistent assessment:

    1. Originality: Whether new theories, methods, or discoveries are proposed
    2. Scientific Rigor: Whether experimental design is sound, data analysis reliable, and conclusions defensible
    3. Significance: Contribution to core problems or applications in physics
    4. Clarity: Whether the paper structure is logically rigorous, figures clear, and language accurate
    5. Literature Citation: Whether domain progress is adequately mastered and citations are appropriate

    Reviewers must provide scores and specific explanations for each criterion, avoiding vague generalizations.

    IV. Reviewer Ethics: Confidentiality and Fairness

    Reviewers are crucial to ensuring academic quality. Our journal imposes strict ethical requirements:

    • Confidentiality: Strictly prohibited from disclosing manuscript content to others or uploading to any public platform, including AI tools
    • Conflict of Interest Declaration: Must recuse themselves when competitive, collaborative, or other relationships exist with authors
    • Timely Completion: Submit reviews within 30 days in principle; notify in advance if unable to meet deadline
    • Constructive Feedback: Comments should be specific and professional, clearly identifying strengths and weaknesses; no personal attacks
    • AI Review Prohibition: Use of AI to generate review reports is forbidden to ensure professional human judgment

    V. Author Rights: Transparent Communication and Appeal Channels

    • Real-time Status Tracking: Authors may log in to the system at any time to check manuscript stage
    • Full Access to Comments: All reviewer comments (except confidential remarks to the Editor) are shared with authors
    • Appeal Mechanism: Those disagreeing with decisions may submit an appeal within 30 days with specific grounds and supplementary materials; the Editor-in-Chief's decision is final
    • Fast Track: Breakthrough results may apply for expedited review to shorten the evaluation cycle

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: Can I suggest reviewers for my manuscript?
    Yes. You may suggest 3–5 potential reviewers during submission. However, the Editor-in-Chief has final authority and may select experts not on your list.

    Q: Do reviewers know who I am?
    Yes. Our journal uses single-blind review; reviewers know author identities, but authors remain anonymous to reviewers.

    Q: If I receive a "Major Revision" decision, what are my chances of acceptance?
    Major revision does not equal rejection. With careful response to comments and thorough revision, there remains strong likelihood of acceptance. We recommend addressing every point sincerely and comprehensively.

    Q: Is AI used in the review process?
    No. Our journal strictly prohibits editors and reviewers from using AI tools to evaluate manuscripts or generate review comments, ensuring human judgment and professionalism in review.

    • 2026-03-10 Visited: 52