요즘 학술잡지를 보면 과거에 비해 그 종류가 아주 많아졌습니다. 논문의 수도 증가하고 따라서 저널도 더 두꺼워젔습니다. 그리고 이는 인용회수의 인플레이션도 가지고 왔습니다. 그 많은 저널들은 그 급에 따라 분류가 됩니다. 물리학쪽에서는 미국적 시각으로 보면 주간 학술지인 피지컬 리뷰 레터스가 가장 권위있는 저널이라고 할 수 있습니다. 물론 이는 상당히 미국적인 시각입니다. 하지만 다른 저널에 비해 높은 임팩트 팩터는 무시할 수 없습니다. 물리학, 특히 응집물질쪽에서 쏟아져 나오는 논문들로 인해 피지컬 리뷰 레터스의 두께가 과거에 비해 굉장히 두꺼워졌습니다. 원래 피지컬 리부 레터스는 한 눈문의 길이가 4쪽으로 제한되어 있습니다. (저자의 수가 100명이 넘는 대규모 실험 그룹의 경우는 제목과 저자가 나온 부분이 한 페이지를 쉽게 넘어가기 때문에 6쪽까지 예외적으로 허용합니다.) 따라서 과거에는 두께가 얇다는 느낌이 들었는데 요즘에는 옆면에 잡지 이름을 넣을 정도로 두꺼워졌습니다. 현재 1주일에 약 80편 가량의 논문이 피지컬 리뷰 레터스에 실립니다. 며칠 전 피지컬 리뷰 레터스에서는 편집자 주를 통해 심사를 더 강화해서 편수를 줄일 수 있도록 하겠다고 발표했습니다. 이러면 임팩트 팩터가 더 높아질 지도 모르겠네요.
--- 피지컬 리뷰 레터스에서 온 이메일 ---
We at Physical Review Letters always look for ways to do better at our core mission, which
is to provide the physics community with accounts of crucial research in a convenient
format. PRL at present publishes about 80 Letters per week, and we Editors, and many
readers of PRL, have concluded that these cannot all discuss crucial research, and that
it is too large a number to be convenient. This view is also held by our editorial board
and by others, as we know from a wide range of exchanges with our colleagues.
As a result we will reaffirm the standards for acceptance for PRL. The criteria will not
change fundamentally, but we will work to apply them with increased rigor. To meet the
PRL criteria of importance and broad interest, a Letter must
1) substantially advance a particular field; or
2) open a significant new area of research; or
3) solve a critical outstanding problem, or make a significant step toward solving such
a problem; or
4) be of great general interest, based, for example, on scientific aesthetics.
We are confident that this initiative will lead to a journal that is better able to
attract the best papers, because it will provide a more exclusive platform for those
papers, and thus impart a higher profile to the most significant results. We also
anticipate that a renewed focus on the characteristics that underlie importance and
broad interest, as listed above, will lead to a more accurate selection process. As
we reinvigorate the PRL criteria, we will also make every effort to make decisions
promptly. This will enable results to reach the community in a timely fashion,
whether in PRL or in a more suitable venue.
For this effort to be successful, authors must submit only results that meet at least
one of the above criteria. Referees must judge breadth of interest based on impact both
in the specific field and across field boundaries, and must support favorable
recommendations with substantive reasons to publish. Editors will be more discriminating
in both their own evaluation of manuscripts and their interpretation of referee reports.
In support of these efforts we will revise our statement of Policies and Practices and
our Referee Response Form.
We will carefully monitor the impact that application of reaffirmed standards has on
the physics community. The process will necessarily be gradual, as authors, referees,
Editors, and Divisional Associate Editors become familiar with more rigorous application
of PRL requirements. This will also allow time to correct for any unexpected deleterious
effects. Although we do not plan a specific numerical target, we do wish to make a
significant change in the number of papers we publish.
We note that there are many papers that are valid and important in their area, but
are not at the level of importance or broad interest that is necessary for PRL.
There are also papers of great importance for their field and/or of broad interest
that simply cannot be presented in a letter format. The Physical Review journals
have high standards and unmatched reputations and are natural venues for such
papers.
We know that these changes will lead to some disappointments. We are convinced, however,
that a more selective PRL will communicate the best physics more efficiently.
Sincerely,
The Editors
Please see our Editorial: Improving PRL
http://prl.aps.org/edannounce/PhysRevLett.103.010001
