Physical Review Materials

I have submitted twice. For my first article as a PhD student, I originally wanted to submit it to PRB (Physical Review B). However, my advisor informed me that PRB no longer accepts articles on traditional materials after 2017. So, I decided to submit it to PRM (Physical Review Materials). Surprisingly, it went smoothly and I can almost say it was a green light all the way.

However, the second submission was a bit frustrating. Although my work also involved traditional materials, it delved into deep physics and was in a very niche research area. As a result, the editor directly rejected it, and their response gave me the impression that they didn't understand it at all. So, I wrote a letter arguing my case, reluctantly went through the review process, and the reviewers didn't strongly recommend it but asked several questions and requested proper answers. As a result, the editor seized this opportunity and rejected it again without delay. Later, I looked up the personal information of the editor responsible for my article and found that their research area had nothing to do with mine. It seemed quite irresponsible.

During my PhD, I have read many articles in PRM, and overall I appreciate the quality of some articles published there. However, based on my two submission experiences, it seems that the editing standards at PRM can vary. Therefore, one should be cautious when submitting.

I have submitted several times in the PR series and have had a few articles published, but to be honest, the quality of PRM articles is much worse than PRB. It is said to be the recycling bin for PRB, so it should be more accurately positioned. However, it is not easy to just submit to PRB. The editors value innovative points, especially in cases where the article is assigned to Editor Wang, it is basically impossible to pass, but it is relatively smooth with other editors. So, I suggest avoiding a certain editor.