Communications Physics publishes original research in one format, Articles, which may range in length from short communications through to more in-depth studies. As a guide, we recommend that Articles be limited to ~5,000 words. Regardless of the length, an Article is a novel and important research study of high quality and of interest to that specific research community.
For a detailed breakdown of our formatting requirements for Articles, and for clarity on recommended structure and content, please see our style and formatting guide. A style and formatting checklist is also available as a resource. Manuscripts submitted to Communications Physics do not need to adhere to our formatting requirements at the point of initial submission; formatting requirements only apply at the time of acceptance.
A Review article summarizes recent advances within a given discipline. Although Reviews should be recognized as scholarly by specialists in the field, they should be written with a view to informing non-specialist readers. Thus, Reviews should be presented using simple prose, avoiding excessive jargon and technical detail.
Review is a flexible article format, but typically occupies no more than 10 pages. A review should begin with a title of up to 15 words and a preface of less than 100 words written for a general audience. As a guide, we recommend that the main text be limited to ~6,000 words. Reviews can include up to 8 display items (figures, tables and/or boxes). Footnotes are not used. Review articles should typically have no more than three authors. For a detailed breakdown of our formatting requirements for Review articles, please see our style and formatting checklist.
The scope of a Review should be broad enough that it is not dominated by the work of a single laboratory, and particularly not by the authors' own work. Unpublished primary research data are not permitted in Reviews.
Authors must provide a competing interests and author contributions statement before publication. Reviews include received/accepted dates. Reviews are always peer reviewed to ensure factual accuracy, appropriate citations and scholarly balance, and they are edited in consultation with the editorial team.
A Perspective is intended to provide a forum for authors to discuss models and ideas from a personal viewpoint. They are more forward looking and/or speculative than Review articles and may take a narrower field of view. They may be opinionated but should remain balanced and are intended to stimulate discussion and new experimental approaches.
Perspectives follow the same formatting guidelines and policies as Reviews. For a detailed breakdown of our formatting requirements for Perspective articles, please see our style and formatting checklist. Perspectives are peer-reviewed and include received/accepted dates. Authors must provide a competing interests and author contributions statement before publication.
Comment is a very flexible format. Comments may be on policy, science and society or purely scientific issues. The main criteria are that they should be of immediate interest to the readership of the journal and should be written in an accessible, non-technical style. Their length is typically 1-4 pages, up to 1,500 words, although some may be longer. Comments do not normally contain primary research data, although they may present 'sociological' data (funding trends, demographics, bibliographic data, etc). For a detailed breakdown of our formatting requirements for Comment articles, please see our style and formatting checklist.
Comment authors must provide a competing interests statement before publication. Comments may be peer reviewed at the editors' discretion.
Important scientific comments and clarifications on peer-reviewed articles published in Communications Physics may be submitted as Matters Arising. The guidelines for Matters Arising are outlined here.
Editorials are written by internal editors, editorial board members or guest editors. They focus on topics that the editorial team feel are of particular current interest to their readership.
Meeting reports are accounts of conferences or other meetings of relevance to the research community, written either by the journal team or by an invited contributor. Meeting Reports are not usually peer reviewed. The vast majority of externally authored meeting reports are commissioned but proposals can be made to the editorial team.