Editorial talk on Physical Review Letters, editor's role & challenges, editorial standards, citation analysis, impact statistics

1. 5/14/15
1
Editors’
Session
Manolis
Antonoyiannakis
Editor,
Physical
Review
Le?ers
Hong
Kong
University
of
Science
and
Technology
Advanced
Study
InsHtute
September
2012
Outline
• The
editors’
point
of
view:
• Editors’
role
and
challenges
• What
papers
we
are
looking
for
• Some
key
quesHons
in
the
field
• Editorial
standards:
do
they
evolve?
• Top-­‐quality
papers:
fast-­‐tracking,
highlighHng
• Unsuitable
papers:
editorial
rejecHon
• Impact
staHsHcs

2. 5/14/15
2
•
Editor
in
Chief:
Gene
D.
Sprouse
Stony
Brook
Univ.
Research
areas:
Nuclear
Physics
Atomic
Physics
•
In-­‐house
editors:
42
(predominantly
for
PRL,
PRB)
•
Remote
editors
(mostly
acHve
researchers):
61
PRA,
PRC,
PRD,
PRE,
and
RMP
•
Technical
supporHng
staff:
100
The
APS
Editorial
Office
37,000
papers
(2011)
A
new
submission
every
3
office
minutes
Every two minutes
someone cites a PRL
• Help
good
papers
get
published
on
a
Hmely
basis
• Filter
clearly
unsuitable
papers
by
editorial
rejecHon
&
peer
review
• Help
scienHsts
become
skilled
referees
• Add
value
to
papers:
• Improve
papers
via
editorial
&
peer
review
• Select
the
best
papers
to
highlight:
in
Physics,
or
as
Editors’
Sugges2ons,
etc.
• But,
editors:
• Operate
under
serious
Hme
restricHons
(eg
PRL:
900
papers/year)
• Limited
experHse;
must
handle
papers
from
several
fields
• Evolve
into
general,
nonspecialist
readers
4
Let
us
know
if
you
think
we
mishandled
your
paper
Editor’s
Role:
Assess
&
promote
research
quality

3. 5/14/15
3
Challenges
for
Editors
• InfluenHal
papers
are
frequently
controversial
• Experts’
judgments:
not
always
faultless
or
perfectly
objecHve
• Editors’
own
knowledge
of
field
and
people
is
limited
• Editors’
Hme
constraints
(15
papers
processed
daily/editor)
• SelecHve
journals
are
subjecHve
by
definiHon
(41st
Chair
effect)
• Interdisciplinary
“cultural”
barriers:
What
belongs
in
a
physics
journal?
How
to
find
referees
for
interdisciplinary
papers?
• Social,
cultural
factors
affect
behavior
of
authors
&
referees
and
thereby
the
fate
of
papers
Experts’
judgments
are
not
always
faultless
Example:
• In
50%
of
the
top-­‐20
cited
papers
in
PRL
(published
in
1991-­‐2000
in
plasmonics,
photonic
crystals
and
negaHve
refracHon)
editors
received
conflicHng
referee
recommendaHons
in
1st
round
or
review

4. 5/14/15
4
SelecHve
journals
are
subjecHve
by
necessity
(41st
Chair
effect)
41st
Chair
Effect
“The
French
Academy
decided
early
that
only
a
cohort
of
40
could
qualify
as
members
and
so
emerge
as
immortals.
This
limitaHon
of
numbers
made
inevitable,
of
course,
the
exclusion
through
the
centuries
of
many
talented
individuals
who
have
won
their
own
immortality.
The
familiar
list
of
occupants
of
this
41st
chair
includes
Descartes,
Pascal,
Moliere,
Bayle,
Rousseau,
Saint-­‐Simon,
Diderot,
Stendhal,
Flaubert,
Zola,
and
Proust.
What
holds
for
the
French
Academy
holds
in
varying
degree
for
every
other
insGtuGon
designed
to
idenGfy
and
reward
talent.”
R.
K.
Merton,
Science
159,
56,
(1968)
Robert
Merton
41st
Chair
effect:
In
any
highly
selecGve
process,
it
is
impossible
to
select
all
and
only
the‘best’
candidates
Developing
an
editorial
philosophy
• Intellectual
humility
and
open-­‐mindedness:
Being
aware
of
the
limit
of
our
knowledge
and
understanding
Being
open
to
the
possibility
of
being
wrong
Accept
that
we
make
mistakes,
but
willing
to
learn
from
them
• Strive
to
look
for
quality
(not
necessarily
citaHon
impact):
i.e.
being
willing
to:
– Publish
specific
papers
knowing
they’ll
be
li?le
cited
– Reject
others
while
knowing
they’ll
likely
be
highly
cited
• ConHnue
to
develop
editorial
judgment
&
to
acquire
professional
knowledge

5. 5/14/15
5
What
papers
we
are
looking
for
We
look
for
papers
that:
Create
a
paradigm
shin
by
thinking
the
‘impossible’
(eg
negaHve
refracHon
and
superlens;
cloaking)
Provide
a
fruipul
analogy
between
fields
(eg
general
relaHvity
–
classical
electromagneHsm,
via
transformaHon
opHcs)
Connect
two
previously
isolated
areas
of
physics
in
a
nontrivial
way
(eg
graphene
+
metamaterials)
Push
a
field
into
a
new
direcHon
(eg
from
opHcs
of
invisibility
to
illusion
opHcs)
Advance
the
state-­‐of-­‐the
art
of
a
field
(eg
from
cloaking
in
microwaves
to
cloaking
of
macroscopic
objects
for
visible
light)
Provide
substanHve
follow-­‐up
to
important
papers
People
in
the
field
should
not
miss,
and
people
in
related
fields
would
be
interested
in
What
papers
we
are
looking
for
We
look
for
papers
that:
Create
a
paradigm
shin
by
thinking
the
‘impossible’
(eg
negaHve
refracHon
and
superlens;
cloaking)
Provide
a
fruipul
analogy
between
fields
(eg
general
relaHvity
–
classical
electromagneHsm,
via
transformaHon
opHcs)
Connect
two
previously
isolated
areas
of
physics
in
a
nontrivial
way
(eg
graphene
+
metamaterials)
Push
a
field
into
a
new
direcHon
(eg
from
opHcs
of
invisibility
to
illusion
opHcs)
Advance
the
state-­‐of-­‐the
art
of
a
field
(eg
from
cloaking
in
microwaves
to
cloaking
of
macroscopic
objects
for
visible
light)
Provide
substanHve
follow-­‐up
to
important
papers
People
in
the
field
should
not
miss,
and
people
in
related
fields
would
be
interested
in
CreaHvity
and
InnovaHon
Quality
and
Substance
Impact
and
Interest

6. 5/14/15
6
Some
key
quesHons
&
expected
developments
Overcome
losses,
especially
towards
opHcal
frequencies
Nonlinear
metamaterials
Light
harvesHng
FuncHonality
&
tunability
All-­‐dielectric
metamaterials
at
opHcal
wavelengths
Broadband
Metamaterial
circuits
(metatronics)
Increased
emphasis
on
experimental
papers,
novel
applicaHons
&
devices
e.g.
cloaking:
aner
a
surge
of
theoreHcal
proposals,
the
bar
is
higher
now
for
theory
We
also
anHcipate
unexpected
developments!
Editorial
Standards
Evolve
•
When
a
field
or
topical
area
is
new
or
emerging:
-­‐ IniHal
growth
stage:
-­‐ Flurry
of
papers,
lots
of
ideas
-­‐ Proposals,
theoreHcal
papers
-­‐ Proof-­‐of-­‐principle
experiments
-­‐ ‘Easy’
results
quickly
a?ained
•
As
a
field
or
topical
area
matures:
-­‐ Slower
growth
stage
-­‐ Smaller
quesHons,
but
also
harder
ones

7. 5/14/15
7
Top-­‐quality
papers:
fast-­‐tracking,
highlighHng
2
reviews
in
2
days
accepted
in
6
days
Free
to
Read
hMp://physics.aps.org

8. 5/14/15
8
Highlighted
papers
are
highly
cited
In
2009-­‐2010:
154
papers
in
APS
journals
were
selected
for
a
Viewpoint
in
Physics:
à
2011
‘impact
factor’
~
19
424
papers
in
PRL
were
selected
for
Editors’
SuggesHons:
à
2011
‘impact
factor’
~
13
71
metamaterials
papers
in
PRL
à
2011
‘impact
factor’
~
13
Unsuitable
papers:
Editorial
RejecHon
• Editors
assess
a
new
paper:
Does
the
paper
meet
the
journal’s
acceptance
criteria?
• If
no:
Editors
send
an
editorial
rejecHon
le?er

9. 5/14/15
9
For
Authors:
Problems
to
Avoid
For
Editors:
Red
Flags
for
Editorial
RejecHon
•
Obvious
marginal
extension
or
incremental
advance
•
Problem
solved
or
issues
addressed
too
specialized
(in
parHcular
for
PRL
and
PRX)
•
Subject
ma?er
or
readership
does
not
fit
For
Authors:
Problems
to
Avoid
For
Editors:
Red
Flags
for
Editorial
RejecHon
•
Poor
presentaHon:
-­‐
no
compelling
moHvaHon:
Why
was
the
work
done?
What
open
and
important
problem
do
you
solve?
-­‐
no
punch
line:
What
are
the
main
message(s)
or
results?
Why
are
they
new
&
important?
-­‐
too
focused
on
technical
details

10. 5/14/15
10
Useful resources for authors
(1) “Whitesides’
Group:
Wri2ng
a
Paper”,
George
M.
Whitesides,
Advanced
Materials
16,
1375
(2004)
A
classic
paper
on
how
to
write
scien2fic
papers
that
every
researcher
should
read.
(2)
“WriHng
a
ScienHfic
Paper:
One,
IdeosyncraHc,
View.”, George
M.
Whitesides,
231st
ACS
NaHonal
MeeHng,
Atlanta,
GA,
March
26-­‐30,
2006
Follow-­‐up
talk
on
how
to
write
a
paper,
with
examples.
(3)
“What
Editors
Want”,
Lynn
Worsham,
The
Chronicle
of
Higher
Educa2on,
September
8,
2008
h?p://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2008/09/2008090801c.htm
A
journal
editor
reveals
the
most
common
mistakes
academics
make
when
they
submit
manuscripts.
Check out workshops on authoring & refereeing
at the APS March and April Meetings 19
Editorially
rejected
manuscripts
-­‐
PRL
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Numberofpapers
Year of submission
PRL Submissions Rejected Without External Review
Percentage RWER shown for each year
Rejected by PRL
Resubmitted to PRL
Published in PRL
10.4 9.5
10.9 10.2
10.6
16.8
18.7
21.5
24.9
28.6
19.0
19.6

11. 5/14/15
11
Acceptance
rates
37.4%
29.5%
-­‐21.1%
7.9%
10.5%
33.4%
-­‐30.0%
-­‐20.0%
-­‐10.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
'98-­‐'00
'08-­‐'10
%
change
PRL
Acceptance
Rates,
1998-­‐2000
vs.
2008-­‐2010
PRL
CN
Acceptance
rates
for
Chinese
papers
in
PRL:
SHll
below
US
&
Europe…
but
gap
is
closing!
Δ=30
Δ=19

12. 5/14/15
12
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
ArGcles
published
in
years
CY-­‐1,
CY-­‐2
CY
PRL:
arGcles
with
at
least
one
address
from
China
CN
only
CN
+
int'al
75%
of
LeMers
with
any
Chinese
address
result
from
internaGonal
collaboraGons
8%
of
PRL
Growth
in
internaHonal
collaboraHons
CitaHon-­‐based
“impact
measure”
for
physics
papers
from
top
insHtuHons
in
China:
For
APS
journals,
similar
to
US
and
European
counterparts
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
HARVARD
BERKELEY
EPFL
EP
HKUST
CN-­‐8
NUS
'Impact
Factor'
2011
(APS
jnls
only)

13. 5/14/15
13
We look for referees in:
• references (authors of, referees of)
• related papers in Web of Science, SPIN, NASA,
Google, APS database (authors, citing papers)
• suggested referees
• referee expertise in APS database
• mental database
We generally avoid:
• Coauthors (current or previous)
• Referees at same institution as authors
• Acknowledged persons
• Direct competitors (if known)
• Busy referees (currently reviewing for PR/PRL)
• Overburdened referees (> 15 mss/past year)
• Consistently slow referees (>8 weeks to review)
• Referees who consistently provide poor reports
How do the editors select referees for a paper?
25
APS
journals
are
strongly
relying
on
expert
input
(majority
of
papers
are
reviewed)
• 2011:
17,248
referees
reviewed
papers
for
Phys.
Rev.
Le?ers
• 60,000
Referees
on
our
APS
database
• Each
year,
we
select
150
Outstanding
Referees
• In
this
meeHng,
we
have
some
excellent
referees:
Roberto
Merlin,
John
Pendry,
Ping
Sheng,
Costas
Soukoulis,
Elenherios
Economou,
Ulf
Leonhardt,
JG
de
Abajo,
Eli
Yablonovitch,
CT
Chan,
Ross
McPhedran,
Shanhui
Fan
Together,
these
11
referees
reviewed
>
2,500
papers
for
APS!
PRL
Divisional
Associate
Editors
(DAE’s):
Costas
Soukoulis,
Roberto
Merlin

14. 5/14/15
14
Impact
StaHsHcs
“My
ques2on
is:
Are
we
making
an
impact?”
Appeal
to
all
scienHsts:
Let’s
quote
Impact
Factors
to
just
ONE
decimal
digit
please!
“I keep telling journal people that they should never even
mention JIF beyond the first decimal place. I mean, to quote a
JIF like "12.345" is ridiculous. Its JIF is "12.3"; why do you
need these two extra digits? It gives a false idea of precision.”
Eugene Garfield
Founder & Chairman Emeritus
Institute for Scientific Information -
now Thomson Reuters
http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/
28

15. 5/14/15
15
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
2011
Impact
Factor
Large
Journals
cannot
have
high
Impact
Factors…
Papers
published
annually
No physics journal that publishes:
>1000 papers/year has a JIF>20
>200 papers/year has a JIF>40
Large impact factors are only possible
for small journals
PRL
PRB
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
2011
Impact
Factor
Large
Journals
cannot
have
high
Impact
Factors…
Papers
published
annually
PRL + RMP together!
IF 7.3 à 7.8
PRL
PRB

16. 5/14/15
16
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0
200
400
600
800
1000
2011
Impact
Factor
Papers
published
annually
Physics
Viewpoints
Nat
Phys
PRL
SuggesHons
Nano
L
Adv
Mat
Nat
Mat
RMP
Nat
Phot
Small
Adv
Fun
Mat
No physics journal that publishes:
>1000 papers/year has a JIF>20
>200 papers/year has a JIF>40
Large impact factors are only possible
for SMALL journals
Large
Journals
cannot
have
high
Impact
Factors…
Most
journals
have
a
highly-­‐cited
subset
“Is
PRL
too
large
to
have
an
‘impact’?”,
Antonoyiannakis
&
Mitra,
PRL
102,
060001
(2009)

17. 5/14/15
17
Nobel Prize Winning Papers in
Physical Reviews (*)
1970’s 1973 1976 1979
1980’s 1980 (1982) 1985 1988 (1989)
1990’s 1990 (1993, 1994) 1995 1997 1998 1998
2000’s (2001) 2002 2004 2005 (2006) 2007 2000
Physics ChemistryDecade
*
CounHng
may
not
be
complete
(2008)
2011
As typified by the 2007 Nobel papers, highly cited papers
often indicate their long-term citation potential early.
PRB
39,
4828
(1989)
PRL
61,
2472
(1988)

18. 5/14/15
18
Why the impact factor does not say it
all: It is an average.
€
IF2010 =
citations2010
papers2008−9
=
c(n)
1
N
∑
N
The IF is the number of citations
over a 2-year window, averaged
over the whole journal.
Not all papers
are created equal!
The IF is the surface area of c(n),
normalized to the total number of papers N
Impact Factor = Average Citation Density
Journal Impact Factor:
A robust metric of average behavior
R
Adler,
J
Ewing
and
P
Taylor,
“Cita2on
Sta2s2cs”,
InternaHonal
MathemaHcal
Union
report,
2008

19. 5/14/15
19
Introduce a new metric for the
highly cited papers in a journal:
S-index
•
•
•
•
•
•
today
‘12
‘11
‘10
‘09
‘08
‘07
For a set of papers
H-index: full publication window, full citation window
S-index (for 2011): 2009-2010 publication window,
2011 citation window
H-index
S-index
2011
S
index
=
S
no.
papers,
published
in
2009-­‐2010,
cited
more
than
S
Hmes
in
2011
15
17
19
20
20
27
28
30
31
31
36
36
36
38
42
43
49
50
51
80
94
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
PRE
JAP
PRC
NJP
PRA
Physics
(Viewpoints)
APL
Nat
Phot
RMP
Nat
Phys
Nat
Nano
ApJ
PRD
PRB
Nat
Mat
Nano
Le?
JACS
PRL
PNAS
Science
Nature
S-­‐index,
2010
Ranking
journals
by
the
S-­‐index

20. 5/14/15
20
Metamaterials
papers
in
PRL
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1
6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
CitaGons(n)
Rank
n
CitaGons
of
Metamaterials
papers
in
PRL
PY=2009-­‐2010
CY=2011
71 papers
‘impact factor’ = 13
S = 17
C(S) = 502
To sum up
average performance
significant performance
indicator
indicator
______________________________________________
Reseacher
citations/paper
H-index
Journal
JIF
S-index, C(S)
______________________________________________
Ø Journal Impact Factors (JIF) are robust but average metrics
Ø Journal size affects JIF strongly
Ø S-index and C(S):
• Track ’significant’ citation performance
• Treat all citations with equal weight
• Much less sensitive to journal size than JIF
• Can be generalized for different fields
• C(S) more sensitive greater range than S-index

21. 5/14/15
21
Assessing
researcher
impact:
QuanHty
and
Quality
Number
of
papers
published
(total
no.
papers)
Number
of
papers
published
in
influenHal
journals
(no.
papers
in
journal
XXX)
CitaHons
of
own
papers
(total
citaHons,
h-­‐index,
S-­‐index,
etc.)
Quality
of
citaHons
of
own
papers
(Eigenfactor,
etc.)
Assessing
researcher
impact:
QuanHty
and
Quality
Number
of
papers
published
(total
no.
papers)
Number
of
papers
published
in
influenHal
journals
(no.
papers
in
journal
XXX)
CitaHons
of
own
papers
(total
citaHons,
h-­‐index,
S-­‐index,
etc.)
Quality
of
citaHons
of
own
papers
(Eigenfactor,
etc.)
Branding
of
journals,
and
especially
researchers,
by
a
single
quanHty
is
poor
pracHce

22. 5/14/15
22
For
feedback,
quesHons,
etc.,
write
to
me
at:
Manolis
Antonoyiannakis
manolis@aps.org
谢谢!!!
Ευχαριστούμε!