In fact, to tell the truth, there are many classic good articles in the journal, but there are more and more bad articles in recent years. Good articles are mostly contributed by older physicists. Now various publishers have published various high-impact factor journals. Except for some of these articles, which are indeed major discoveries, most of them are just hot spots and play to the gallery. Therefore, in the minds of the older generation of scientific researchers, APL is still very powerful and authoritative. However, with the launch of various new journals, the growth of a new generation of researchers, and the change in the Scientific research atmosphere, impact factors are about to become the gold standard for evaluating all kinds of things. Although it is unreasonable, we can't help it. This has led to most new generation of researchers generally submitted to high impact factor journals when they have any good work, and few people choose APL as the first choice. And in the past few years, many deputy editors of APL are really not good. Many articles have no highlights at all, but because the authors are authorities, the papers can be published. Valueless papers from the authorities can be published at their wills. For ordinary people, it is difficult to be accepted and the impact factor is low, which is really chilling. I think if the journal really wants to expand its influence, it won’t make much difference if it is not sent for review. I hope that it will be the key to carefully choosing an associate editor, otherwise it may really be ruined.

(41) Thank | 辛苦的科研狗

I think the 86th floor is right. I have submitted two or three articles in the past two years. I thought the quality of my articles was good, but they were all rejected. However, after I transferred to other journals, the number of citations of this article reached more than a dozen times, and the managing editor of each submission was the same person and never changed. I have also read many articles on APL. Some of the articles are of poor quality, but they can be published. So I think what the 86th floor said is reasonable. Now APL has really become a playground for the authorities, resulting in uneven article quality and very big differences. And now very few people like to cite APL. The processing speed of manuscripts is not as fast as before. It is recommended that you should be cautious when submitting to this journal. It is better not to submit to APL if you have articles of better qualities.

(5) Thank | Huang@MR

The downstairs is really nonsense. I submitted three articles last year and one got accepted. The other two were not sent for review, and fortunately, they were later submitted to the journals in Q1 of material category and got accepted after revisions, one in ASS and another in CEJ. I feel that the article that accepted here is not of high quality as the other two articles. Now APL has become a playground for the authority academics, resulting in different quality of articles. This is also one of the reasons why the impact factor has been falling. The impact factor for this year should be around 3.5. Downstairs, you must be dreaming of a top 5 within two years. Don't be fooled, everyone. Be cautious when submitting to this journal, and the speed is not as fast as in previous years. Some editors are irresponsible, and judge the quality of the article based on the first feeling. Of course, this journal is still authoritative, but it is not realistic to rush back to a Q1.

(10) Thank | 辛苦的科研狗

From what I’ve heard recently, the articles published in APL are still quite good. Many classic physics papers have been published in this journal. Our group submitted to APL recently, and our paper was accepted after 51 days. Apparently, the review period was longer than usual because one of the first three reviewers admitted that they did not understand our research, and therefore could not review the article. This was strange as the other two reviewers were thorough and critical, and clearly understood the evolution of the research (we were publishing a follow-up study to our advisor’s research). The editor found an alternative reviewer quickly, which was appreciated.

(25) Thank | kexue_880116@126.com

No, APL's OA is optional. If you want to choose OA, it's also possible.

(0) Thank | Gin

Do you charge a layout fee now, and how much is the fee?

(0) Thank | 仅仅穿堂风

Submitted in early February, it took a lot of time to find reviewers. Received the review comments at the end of April, with two minor revisions. Submitted the revised manuscript in late May, and it was accepted by the editor after reviewing.

(0) Thank | Gin

Recently it has been difficult to find reviewers, the Associate Editor is very nice, with 2 reviewers assigned. 
1.25 Submitted for review; 
1.29 Formatting revised; 
2.05 Submitted for review; 
3.22 Received reviewer comments; 
4.23 Revised; 
5.07 Accepted; 
5.15 Published.

(0) Thank | Jinglong Xie

3.16 submit
4.24 notification of revision
4.28 revise
5.13 accept

It took quite a long time to find reviewers, but the review process was relatively fast.

(0) Thank | 资深投稿人

Have you heard any news after your revised manuscript was sent back? It's been a long time since mine was returned as well.

(0) Thank | GFY11

Excuse me, why has the card been stuck here for three weeks?

(0) Thank | zcccccooo

It's been three weeks now, why is that?

(0) Thank | zcccccooo

After finding the reviewers, it has been stuck here for three weeks, why?

(0) Thank | zcccccooo

Submission Check by Editorial Office Failed

Will I receive an email at this step, or will only the corresponding author receive an email?

(0) Thank | zc_li

It has been stuck for 4 days.

(0) Thank | zc_li

Has any teacher been stuck on submission check? It's been four days already, and it's just been stuck on "started" without any progress.

(0) Thank | 山山而川川

APL relies too much on luck to assign AE, professional AE are okay, some AE who are not in a major field can still review papers, but when looking at their academic homepage, it is filled with unrelated content, and their speaking skills are extremely disappointing.

(0) Thank | HangL

Could you please tell me if Appl. Phys. Lett. has a Word template? I am unable to access the author guidelines webpage.

(0) Thank | 崇政

Excuse me, does Appl. Phys. Lett have a word template? The author guide webpage also cannot be opened.

(0) Thank | 崇政

Is this Associate Editor Review the first modification after revision? I seem to have encountered this as well, the second reviewer has not reviewed it yet and it has now become an Associate Editor Review.

(0) Thank | 晚曛

Submission on November 29, 2024
Potential Reviewers Selected on December 7, 2024
The first reviewer agreed to review on December 10, 2024, but some experts declined to review, so APL had some difficulty finding reviewers.
The second reviewer agreed to review on December 17, 2024
The editor received all reviewers' comments on January 1, 2025, and the review process was quite fast, taking about half a month.
Reviewer comments came back on January 3, 2025, and the editor gave a month for revisions, minor revisions.
Replied to reviewer comments on January 20, 2025
Accepted on January 26, 2025, APL was quite fast.

(0) Thank | 阿克琉克

Is there hope for APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS to become a top journal again this year?

(0) Thank | 一叶轻舟

APL is really too slow, the review process is slow, can't find reviewers, the review and editing process is also slow, it's been 126 days since submission and still not accepted.

(0) Thank | 奋进K

2025.1.1 accepted and recorded
2024.9.5 stj
2024.11.15 major 2 reviewers, one with 5 questions and one with 9 questions, both had a positive attitude and provided some highly constructive feedback
2024.12.11 ur
2025.1.1 accepted
The whole process took 4 months, with the editorial team being prompt in handling the submission. Most of the time was spent on finding reviewers, once they were found, the process was quick. Each reviewer took approximately one week to review. Overall, the submission experience was excellent.

(1) Thank | yuyn

Please translate the following passage into English: "一起发的"

(0) Thank | sdhjbl