The art of rapid peer‐reviewed publication

Abstract

Dear readers, As the second volume of pss-Rapid Research Letters approaches completion, we are tempted to look back on the past two years to see what we have accomplished. By now, pss-RRL has earned its reputation for rapid publication and high scientific standing, something we believe can be expressed in actual numbers. Since the launch of pss-RRL as a stand-alone journal, approximately 650 submissions have reached us. Of these, 31% have been accepted for publication while 51% were rejected by the Editors. The remaining 18% were ultimately withdrawn by the authors either following editorial recommendation or due to critical referee judgements, some with later re-assignments as Original Papers to pss (a) or (b). These figures speak for a very careful and thorough editorial selection process which is summarized by the three terms: novelty, importance, and quality. Our rigorous peer review process would not be possible without the dedicated support of no less than 630 referees. We sincerely appreciate the 970 reports they provided during these two years. We made every effort to match the topics of manuscripts with reviewers' areas of expertise. The high positive-response rates show that this time was well invested, avoiding burdening referees with unnecessary work. On average, referees returned their comments within just 7 calendar days, which made friendly reminders unnecessary in 58% of the requests to review. Let us look at the assessments in more detail: of those submissions that were ultimately accepted, only 28% of the referees had recommended acceptance in their original form. The majority of the reports (63%) recommended revision prior to publication. Hence, in most cases the peer-review process indeed helped to improve the manuscripts received quite substantially. Concerning the rejected papers, obviously a large percentage (59%) of referees voted for outright rejection, but in a further 33% of the cases, recommendation for revision did not result in the ultimate acceptance of the papers. The cornerstone of our editorial policy is undoubtedly marked by our strict double peer-review procedure (see figure); a main condition for acceptance which is accompanied by thorough assessments by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Office. Number of referees for accepted and rejected RRLs in 2007/08. Number of referees for accepted and rejected RRLs in 2007/08. In terms of performance, we can fully confirm the average speed shown in the diagram on p. A90 (Instructions for authors). Thus, on average, our process allows us to accept and publish a Letter within about one month if revision is required, and within just two weeks if it can be accepted “as is”. All this is only possible by a strict priority handling during all steps of the editorial and production process, keeping office and typesetting times – as compared to periods required for peer review, manuscript revision etc. – to an absolute minimum, often to be measured in hours only. We are more than convinced that this editorial approach has indeed generated a high-quality journal. This is also indicated by our article download statistics which currently exceed 20000, and strong citation numbers. To name just a few topical highlights, TiO2 nanotubes (36 citations) [1], non-polar nitride LEDs (22 citations) [2] and transparent oxide TFTs (14 citations) [3] are certainly among our readers' favourites and provide evidence of our sense for current important research areas. In addition, our two Focus issues on central energy-related topics, namely thermoelectrics [4] and photovoltaics (Part I covering a broad range of systems from silicon to organics, and part II appearing in this issue) [5] were enthusiastically greeted by the scientific community, especially at the 2007 MRS Fall Meeting in Boston and the 23rd EU PVSEC in Valencia where those issues were presented. Now we look forward to many more years of pss-RRL during which we hope the journal will be further established, grow, and prosper as the fastest peer-reviewed publication in solid state physics. To achieve this, we continue to count on your steady support as our authors, referees and readers! Stefan Hildebrandt, Managing Editor of the physica status solidi journals, has been with the Editorial Office at Wiley-VCH since 1999. Previously he studied and worked at the Universities of Halle (Germany) (Ph.D., 1988), Moscow (Russia) and Cork (Ireland). He is a solid state physicist with a primary background in semiconductor and surface physics. Stefan Hildebrandt, Managing Editor of the physica status solidi journals, has been with the Editorial Office at Wiley-VCH since 1999. Previously he studied and worked at the Universities of Halle (Germany) (Ph.D., 1988), Moscow (Russia) and Cork (Ireland). He is a solid state physicist with a primary background in semiconductor and surface physics.