- General information
- Initial submission
- Focus Collections
- Peer review
- Decision after review and revision
- Final submission and acceptance
Communications Physics is an open access journal from Nature Portfolio publishing high-quality research, reviews and commentary in all areas of the physical sciences. Research papers published by the journal represent significant advances bringing new physical insight to a specialized area of research.
Editorial decisions at Communications Physics may be made either by in-house editors or Editorial Board Members. Authors may request that a specific editor be considered for handling the review process of their paper. However, the assignment of manuscripts to editors is at the discretion of the chief editor. All manuscripts received with reviewer comments from another Nature Portfolio journal via the manuscript transfer service will be handled only by our in-house editors.
Manuscripts should be submitted via the online submission system. The corresponding author should indicate whether the work described in the manuscript has been discussed with a specific Communications Physics editor before submission. Copies of any papers containing related work that are under consideration or in-press at other journals should be included with the submission as additional supplementary information.
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.
Each new submission is assigned to a primary editor, who may be either one of our in-house editors or an Editorial Board Member. The primary editor reads the paper, consults with other members of the editorial team, and then evaluates the novelty and potential impact of the work, the appropriateness for the journal's editorial scope, the conceptual or methodological advances described in the paper, and its potential interest to the readership of Communications Physics. Manuscripts that meet these editorial criteria are sent out to external referees for further assessment.
The novelty of a submitted paper is considered to be compromised if it has significant conceptual overlap with a published paper or one accepted for publication by Communications Physics. Preprint archives do not compromise novelty.
If a paper was previously reviewed at another Nature Portfolio journal, the authors can use an automated manuscript transfer service to transfer the referees' reports to Communications Physics via a link sent by the editor who handled the manuscript. Manuscripts received by Communications Physics via the transfer service that have associated referee comments from the transferring journal are only handled by our in-house editors. The editors at Communications Physics will take the previous reviews into account when making their decision, although in some cases the editors may choose to take advice from additional referees. Alternatively, authors may choose to request a fresh review, in which case they should not use the automated transfer link, and the editors will evaluate the paper without reference to the previous review process. However, this decision must be made at the time of initial submission and cannot be changed later.
If the authors ask the editors to consider the previous reviews, they should include a note explaining the relationship between the submitted manuscript and the previous submission and (assuming it has been revised in light of the referees' criticisms) give a point-by-point response to the referees. In cases where the work was felt to be of high quality, papers can sometimes be accepted without further review, but if there were serious criticisms, the editors will consider them in making the decision. In the event of publication, the received date is the date of submission to Communications Physics. More details are available on the manuscript transfer service.
If your paper has been previously submitted to another Nature Portfolio journal, you can use our automated manuscript transfer service to submit the paper to Communications Physics. Alternatively, you may choose to submit afresh, in which case you should not use the automated transfer link, and your paper will be evaluated without reference to the previous decision process.
Communications Physics is editorially independent, and our in-house editors and Editorial Board Members make decisions independently from other Nature Portfolio journals. It is for authors alone to decide where to submit their manuscripts. For papers that satisfy the scope of more than one Nature Portfolio journal, the choice of which journal to submit to first lies with the authors.
Guest-edited Focus Collections of original primary research articles are published open access and online only.
Focus Collections are by invitation only and manuscripts are assessed according to the same high standard editorial criteria of all manuscript submitted to Communications Physics and are subject to all standard journal policies. If accepted for publication, an article processing charge applies (with standard waiver policy).
Manuscripts submitted to a Focus Collection may be considered unsuitable for inclusion if the research thereby reported falls outside the scope of the Collection. In such cases, the authors will be notified by the Guest Editor(s) or by the journal’s Editor and their manuscript may be considered as a regular Communications Physics submission, provided it satisfies the criteria of novelty and impact required for consideration in the journal.
Guest Editors are invited by in-house Editors or by Editorial Board members. We may consider spontaneous candidacies if a case is made for it. Collections provide Guest Editors with the opportunity to be more actively involved in the journal’s development and to help Communications Physics to better serve their communities. Guest Editors are involved in soliciting papers, in writing a short description of the Collection and an introductory Editorial. They may manage some or all of the submissions to the Focus Collection through the peer review process, as long as Communications Physics’ standard competing interests conditions are met.
Communications Physics’ in-house editors reserve the right to assume responsibility for management of a Collection at any stage.
The corresponding author is notified by e-mail when the editor decides to send a paper for review. At the submission stage authors may indicate a limited number of scientists who should not review the paper. Excluded scientists must be identified by name. Authors may also suggest referees; these suggestions are often helpful, although they are not always followed. By policy, referees are not identified to the authors, except when they sign their reports to the authors. We support our reviewers signing their reports to authors if reviewers feel comfortable doing so. Referee reports, whether signed or not, are subsequently shared with the other reviewers.
Transparent peer review
Communications Physics uses a transparent peer review system, where for manuscripts submitted from January 2019 we are publishing the reviewer comments to the authors and author rebuttal letters of revised versions of our published research Articles. Authors are provided the opportunity to opt in or opt out of transparent peer review at the completion of the peer review process, before the paper is accepted. If the manuscript was transferred to us from another Nature Portfolio journal, we will not publish reviewer reports or author rebuttals of versions of the manuscript under consideration at the originating Nature Portfolio journal but for clarity, we will declare that the paper has been reviewed elsewhere. The peer review file is published online as a supplementary peer review file. Although we hope that the peer review files will provide a detailed and useful view into our peer review process, it is important to note that these files will not contain all the information considered in the editorial decision making process, such as the discussions between editors, editorial decision letters, or any confidential comments made by reviewers or authors to the editors.
We are committed to maintaining the anonymity of our peer reviewers. Reviewer names will only be published in the peer reviewer files if the reviewer comments to the authors are signed by the reviewer, or if reviewers explicitly agree to release their name.
In some cases, the editors may redact information from the reviewer reports if they are deemed to contain confidential data. Authors may request redactions on the basis of protecting specific confidential information. Please note that we cannot incorporate redactions for other reasons.
Decision after review and revision
In cases where the referees have requested well-defined changes to the manuscript that do not appear to require extensive further experiments, editors may request a revised manuscript that addresses the referees' concerns. The revised version is normally sent back to some or all of the original referees for re-review. The decision letter will specify a deadline (typically two months), and revisions that are returned within this period will retain their original submission date.
In cases where the referees' concerns are more wide-ranging, editors will normally reject the manuscript. If the editors feel the work is of potential interest to the journal, however, they may express interest in seeing a future resubmission. The resubmitted manuscript may be sent back to the original referees or to new referees, at the editors' discretion.
In either case, the revised manuscript should be accompanied by a cover letter explaining how the manuscript has been changed, and a separate point-by-point response to referees' comments. Ideally no more than two resubmissions will be considered for each manuscript, following which we will try to reach a final decision on publication.
An invited revision should be submitted via the revision link to the online submission system provided in the decision letter, not as a new manuscript.
Final submission and acceptance
A request for final submission is sent when the paper is nearly ready to publish, possibly requiring some changes to the text, but no revisions to the data or conclusions. These letters are accompanied by detailed comments on the paper's format indicating editorial concerns that must be addressed in the revision. The final submission must comply with our format requirements, which are summarized in our style and formatting guide.
After acceptance, our typesetters may make changes to the manuscript so that the paper conforms to our style. Communications Physics uses Oxford English spelling.
For the final revision, authors should use the revision link to the online submission system provided in the decision letter to upload a final version of the text with all the requested format changes and electronic files of the final figures at high resolution.
When all remaining editorial issues are resolved, the paper is formally accepted. The received date is the date on which the editors received the original manuscript. The accepted date is when the editor sends the acceptance letter.
Corresponding authors are sent proofs and are welcome to discuss proposed changes with the editors, but Communications Physics reserves the right to make the final decision about matters of style and the size of figures.
In cases where editors did not invite resubmission, authors are strongly advised to submit their paper for publication elsewhere, although it is possible for authors to ask the editors to reconsider a rejection decision. These are considered appeals, which, by policy, must take second place to the normal workload.
Decisions are reversed on appeal only if the editors are convinced that the original decision was a serious mistake, not merely a borderline call that could have gone either way. Further consideration may be merited if a referee made substantial errors of fact or showed evidence of bias, but only if a reversal of that referee's opinion would have changed the original decision. Similarly, disputes on factual issues need not be resolved unless they were critical to the outcome.