It was my first time to submit to Physical Review Materials. The process speed of the editor was very fast, and the questions raised by the reviewers were also to improve the article. It is a good submission experience.

(20) Thank | qixi

PRM is very efficient now. Submitted in early April, 3 reviewers were invited, 2 were very positive, but some minor issues needed to be corrected. Another reviewer seemed to give no reply, so the editor returned the review comments to us without waiting for the third one. It took us 2 weeks for making a minor revision, and then it got accepted directly after submission. I didn't expect it to be so efficient during the epidemic, and the whole process was very satisfying! By my calculation, the instant IF should become almost 3.6. Come on!

(19) Thank | automan96

After six months in Physical Review Applied, the editor suggested it to be transferred to PR Materials. Then it was accepted directly after about a week. This journal aims to the materials focusing on physical mechanism, and the impact factor should be lower than PR Applied and PRB. I feel that it aims to accept those articles partial to the physical mechanism that rejected by PRB, or those articles partial to the mechanism and application background that rejected by PR Applied, and the material-based articles. It should be that the PR series wants to follow other materials journals and expand its physics-oriented perspective to the entire materials science. The word of mouth and industry recognition should be under PRB and PR Applied.

(22) Thank | JJKK

My manuscript was eventually rejected by PRL after one year, and the editor suggested I switch to PR Materials. It was directly accepted after a week or so. The positioning of this journal should be a material biased physical mechanism, and the impact factor should be directly between PRB and PRL.

(6) Thank | QQQ

Awaiting the outcome.

(0) Thank | Jennysea

My first innovative work during my Ph.D. focuses on the electronic structure of disordered materials at a research site. I have been rejected by npj computational materials and materials today physics, and now I am trying prm. I hope to have a good result

(1) Thank | Xiao-Yu Wang

It mainly depends on the partition. If PRM is placed in the physical category, it will be very good, although the materials are lacking, but the articles inside are not just about materials like the AM series

(0) Thank | John1234

Who can predict when I can advance to Zone 2?

(0) Thank | orlando

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.

(2) Thank | Automata

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.

(2) Thank | 嚯嚯

Positioned as a recycling bin for PRL and PRB.

(2) Thank | Skyrmions

The PR series truly did not understand materials science well, and in recent years, it has been a typical example of investment failures.

(2) Thank | Skyrmions