Associate Editor position, PRX Quantum / Physical Review A

PRA and PRX Quantum are seeking a talented and motivated postdoc to join the journals as a new full-time (staff) Associate Editor in the area of quantum science. The position is split between the two journals, with PRX Quantum being the primary journal, but the expectation that the new editor would work on both journals roughly 50% of their time. (Re-)location to/in the US is required, but within the US, working remotely is an option. 

The full advertisement for the position can be found here: https://aps.applicantstack.com/x/detail/a270i42m8l0s

Transparent peer review and crediting referees

Transparent peer review to be extended to all of Nature’s research papers 

All papers published in Nature (but not baby Nature journals, yet) will be published alongside the referee reports and author rebuttals.

Some of the given motivations are increased transparency and trust in the scientific method, as well as giving early career researchers (who may lack many opportunities to see reports and review) a chance to see inside the process.

We should keep in mind that publishing reports and rebuttals is not the whole story. The identities of the anonymous referees are also important:

• Referee A gave a highly scathing report, but recently uploaded a competing manuscript on arXiv.
• Referee B was very positive, but they were grad students in the same group as the corresponding author many years ago and are still friends, even though they do not collaborate.
• Referee C gave a very brief report that seems not very well thought out, but they are a giant in the field anticipated to receive a Nobel Prize someday.
• Referee D has reviewed dozens of papers for the journal and recommends rejection 95% of the time.

Missing this context, some editorial decisions will seem confusing to the outside reader. Referee C's report might seem unprofessional, but it carries the weight of decades of experience. 

There is also an implicit selection bias - only papers that make it to publication will have reports published. This excludes papers that receive negative reviews, and papers that are desk rejected by the editors. 

All these limitations mean that open peer review needs to be complemented with mentorship by more experienced researchers.

Unfortunately, a minority of experienced referees do the majority of the work. Some authors may publish prolifically in respected journals but refuse to do any reviews for them. There is a need for better incentives for referees beyond the less tangible benefits of seeing research before it is published as well as the other referee reports and author rebuttals.

There are many calls to pay referees for their service. Why not? Some grant agencies pay referees for proposals. It makes sense to pay for quality reviews when a lot of money is on the line. It is hard to devote similar resources to papers without substantially increasing the cost of publishing, not just to cover the review fees but all the associated admin expenses with paying people all over the world. This would unfairly impact less well-funded groups and referees from certain countries who may be prevented from receiving payments.

It is much more practical to offer non-monetary incentives. Previously, Optica allowed you to cash in points earned by submitting quality referee reports to get a rebate on their membership fees. I found that an effective incentive, motivating me to review a few papers a year alongside my editorial duties at APS. Unfortunately it appears to be discontinued now, perhaps because the scheme was too expensive for them. Related schemes mainly offered by for-profit publishers (publication fee discounts based on reviewing activity) are too small to be effective, especially when authors generally do not pay these fees out of their own pocket.

What other non-monetary compensation can journals offer?

One idea that was floated at the recent PRA editorial board meeting was to offer a "Second Chance Voucher" for accumulating a sufficient number of points for good reports. This voucher would allow authors to request another referee opinion on a manuscript up for rejection (either by the editors, or after review). At selective journals such as PRL or PRX, in the event of split referee recommendations it is common to reject the paper. This would give authors who give back to the community by refereeing regularly the option to get another chance. And despite the need to consult more referees on some papers, it would overall increase the pool of active referees motivated to submit quality reports.

What other non-monetary compensation would motivate you to review more papers? Comments are welcome!

Lead Editor opening at Physical Review Research

The American Physical Society is conducting an international search for a new Lead Editor of Physical Review Research, a fully open access, peer-reviewed journal welcoming the full spectrum of research topics of interest to the physics and physics-adjacent communities.

The Lead Editor is the primary scientific advisor to the journal and chairs the Editorial Board. They provide community oversight of the journal’s content and direction, strategically advising the journal’s Chief Editor in a consultative capacity. The role is key in helping shape the journal’s long-term goals and growing and elevating the journal within the community.

The ideal candidate will possess the following qualifications:

• Stature in one or more areas of research within the scope of Physical Review Research and within its author and referee community
• Visionary and strategic with the ability to look at what’s required in broad terms and contribute to the development of strategic plans
• Excellent stakeholder management and interpersonal skills, with a proven track record of making the right connections and build networks both internally and externally
• Impeccable communication skills and ability to engage others
• Ability to make prompt independent evaluations and decisions
• Track record of mobilizing a group of people (without direct line management authority) to effectively support the the goals of the journal and the portfolio at large
• Able to manage multiple priorities
• Experience chairing meetings with diplomacy and ensuring that all members have the opportunity to contribute to the Board meaningfully
• Proven track record of identifying opportunities for improvement and planning/executing delivery plans to implement those improvements
• Excellent knowledge of the scientific research landscape in the areas of coverage
• Enthusiasm for learning about new research areas and trends in scientific publishing
• Strong sense of integrity and a commitment to a diverse and inclusive research community

The Lead Editor is expected to maintain their present position and location while devoting a percentage of their time to this position (typically not more than 10%). The initial appointment is for a three-year term, with renewal possible after review. The position comes with a competitive stipend, which is negotiable and dependent on the established time commitment.

The search is open to all candidates regardless of their place of residence. Review of applications will begin immediately and continue until a candidate is selected. Applicants are invited to submit a CV and a cover letter describing their vision for the future of Physical Review Research to enhance the quality and impact of the journal. Nominations should include a cover letter describing why the nominee will make an effective Lead Editor. Inquiries, nominations, and applications should be sent to: PRR Search Committee, at edsearch@aps.org.

Part-time Associate Editor position in quantum science at Physical Review A

Physical Review A (PRA) is looking for a new part-time Associate Editor in the area of quantum science to join our team.

For more than 50 years, PRA has been publishing important developments in the rapidly evolving areas of AMO physics, quantum science, and related fundamental concepts. The journal is growing, and we are looking for someone working in the area of quantum science to join our team of editors on a part-time basis. The candidate would be expected to maintain their current academic position while serving as an editor for PRA.

The advertisement for the position can be found here, including further details about the expectations for this role, time commitment, how to apply, etc. We look forward to applications from qualified candidates. The deadline to apply is August 10th, 2024.

 

A few notes about the selection criteria:

 

(1) Current active involvement and stature in the relevant field of research. 

 

You should be publishing, and in good journals. Invited talks at or involvement in organisation of reputable conferences or awards can also serve as evidence of active involvement and stature in the field. Within quantum science there is an enormous breadth of sub-topics ranging from fundations to applications, so someone with experience in a wider variety of topics is likely to be preferred over someone with more narrow expertise. This is another reason why you should work on something a bit different after your PhD.

 

(2) An outstanding record as a referee and a demonstrated commitment to peer review. 

 

Serve as a good referee on papers when asked, obviously. If you haven't reviewed for APS, you can express your interest here. Write useful, constructive reports including suggestions on how the manuscript can be improved (even if you don't think it meets the standards of the journal). Return reports quickly and/or within the timeframe you promise. It's OK to decline if a paper is outside your expertise or you are too busy - we really appreciate fast responses. We don't have access to your referee record at other journals, so it is better to concentrate your refereeing service at a few publishers that you submit your own manuscripts too, rather than spreading your efforts across dozens of different publishers. Particularly for the case of for-profit publishers - if you don't publish with them why should you volunteer your time for their benefit?

 

(3) The ability to work within the editorial team and the desire to maintain the quality and reputation of the journal. 

 

Evidence of desire to maintain the quality and reputation of the journal can include service as a good referee and submitting your own good papers to the journal.

 

Associate Editor positions at Physical Review Letters

Physical Review Letters seeks three dynamic and personable individuals with postdoctoral experience in quantum information science and technology, photonics, condensed matter physics, or materials science to join their close-knit team of editors running the world’s leading physics journal. No editorial experience is required, though familiarity with the review process as an author and referee is expected.

These are full-time positions. While the work can be done remotely, the successful applicants should be residing somewhere in the USA and responsive during East Coast working hours.

Further information on the application process may be found here!

ChatGPT, write my article introduction! And editors versus referees

This paper with an introduction brazenly written by ChatGPT attracted a lot of attention last week. How is it that the first line of the introduction could remain in the final version without anyone (authors, editors, referees, proofing staff) noticing? 

Some said this was no big deal - aren't paper introductions boilerplate junk that nobody reads anyway? Yes and no. While an expert in the field might not expect to learn anything new from reading a paper introduction, it is nevertheless important as a means for the authors to convince the reader that they sufficiently understand the context of the research and are in a position to make a novel and significant contribution.

Others argued this was an example of the failure of peer review and the current scientific publishing system - junk papers that no one (not even the authors!) read.

Who exactly is at fault here (apart from the authors, obviously) - the journal editors or the referees?

Actually, it is not the referees' job to proofread manuscripts! Many referees will not bother to laboriously point out all the obvious typos in a manuscript and will purely focus on the scientific content in their reports. Sloppiness that the authors fail to notice themselves will detract from the credibility of the science reported and may be more damning than scathing technical criticism by the referees that might not be adequately addressed in the final paper!

The editors should have caught this in their initial screening. One of the roles of an editor is to curate content and ensure that the valuable time of the volunteer referees is not wasted on obviously incorrect, unconvincing, or not even wrong manuscripts. At the same time, we don't want to waste the authors' time by agreeing to send the manuscript out for review and then being unable to secure willing referees!

At Physical Review A we desk reject about half of the manuscripts we receive without sending out for peer review. While this might sound like a lot, these manuscripts tend to be of much lower quality than those that are eventually published. There are several red flags that make us lean towards desk rejection:

Out of journal scope. Does the manuscript report results that are of interest to the readers of the journal? One simple way to gauge this is to check the reference list of the finished manuscript - if you are only referring to works from other disciplines, this is not by itself grounds for rejection, but it is a hint that you need to be particularly careful with explaining the relevance of your work to the journal's specific audience.

Poor presentation. Obvious typos. Ugly figures. No figures (passable in rare cases). Too many figures. Illegible axis markers. Incorrectly formatted equations and symbols. Basic stuff, but many authors sadly cannot be bothered.

Transfer after rejection from a sister journal. This one is surprisingly common, particularly for research topics which fall in the scope of multiple APS journals. Most often we see transfers from PR Applied and PRB, which have higher impact factors, so the authors decide to try their luck with PRA. But the standards of all these journals are the same, regardless of their impact factors that fluctuate from year to year. This means that rejection from PR Applied or PRB generally precludes publication in PRA, except in special cases.

No significant new physics. This is the most controversial. Who is the editor to decide what is significant - isn't that the job of the referees? We do lean towards giving the benefit of the doubt and sending out to referees for this one. The manuscripts that fail this test generally lack the "so, what?" factor - assuming all the claims are correct, have we learned anything new? It is always possible to tweak models, change terms, make them a bit more complicated, and then apply analysis tools that are standard for the field to get something that is technically correct. But the impact of such technically correct works will be limited unless they open up something new - a novel experimental platform, a way to push the limits of existing theory, and so on.

It is never pleasant for one of your articles to be rejected without review, but it is actually the second best response you can receive! The likely alternative would be for you to wait months before receiving a similar rejection on the basis of anonymous referee reports!

Quantum Jobs

PRX Quantum seeks an Associate Editor, Quantum Information. Physical Review is home to the most Nobel Prize-winning physics papers in the world. This is an opportunity to be at the forefront of the most exciting breakthroughs in quantum science!

Many postdoctoral openings at the Centre for Quantum Technologies, Singapore, ranging from experimental integrated photonics to applying quantum-inspired algorithms to bioinformatics!

Coming soon: ARC Centre of Excellence in Quantum Biotechnology. This newly-funded centre aims to pioneer paradigm-shifting quantum technologies to observe biological processes and transform our understanding of life. Stay tuned for openings in this exciting new field...

Full-time editorial positions – Physical Review journals

The Physical Review journals currently have two full-time editorial openings. Both positions are "remote-first," meaning that the successful applicant may hold the position while residing anywhere in the USA.

Associate or Senior Associate Editor, Quantum Information

The editorial teams of PRX Quantum and Physical Review Applied are looking for someone with a deep understanding of the research and academic publishing landscape in quantum, a keen eye for detail, and excellent communication skills. A full job description can be found here. APS follows a remote-first environment within the USA and sponsors visa applications.

This full-time position is an excellent opportunity for someone with a strong publication record and referee experience, who has decided to shift gears and pursue a different path outside of academia. Postdoctoral experience in the broad field of quantum information is required. Individuals with editorial experience can apply for a senior position.

Associate Editor or Senior Associate Editor, Physical Review Letters

Would you like to join our close-knit team of editors running the world’s leading physics journal? As an Associate Editor of Physical Review Letters, you would handle all phases of the peer review process and ultimately decide which papers we publish. For this important work, we seek, for two open positions, dynamic and personable individuals with a strong scientific background in either condensed matter and materials science, or physics of fluids, polymer physics, chemical physics, geophysics, or complex systems.

Our editors stay engaged with the physics community and abreast of the latest research by attending meetings and visiting research institutions around the world. In addition, editors participate in various editorial initiatives and cross-departmental APS projects.

No editorial experience is required, though we do expect familiarity with the review process as an author and referee. We will train you to develop the editorial skills needed to be part of our team. Candidates with considerable editorial experience in handling manuscripts for peer-reviewed journals, and demonstrated impact in that role, may qualify for the senior position. 

The application deadline is April 30th, 2023.

2022 in review

Quite a lot happened this year:

1. Travel has returned to pre-covid normalcy, and I even had the chance to attend an in-person conference in Korea. Online is no substitute for the discussions that take place in the breaks between talks. I am glad that our students have also had the chance to travel abroad for inspiring conferences (ICOAM and QTML).

2. In academia it is hard to say no - we are always enticed by opportunities to get another paper, get more citations, increase our h-index. In the first half of the year I was incredibly overworked, supervising several PhD students while trying to find time to finish my own projects. After finishing my two overdue review articles in July I decided to cut back on commitments so I would have time to properly supervise students. This was a great success, and it's quite liberating not having to care about getting just one more paper in PRL/Nature/whatever.

3. I have now worked a full year as a remote editor for Physical Review A, handling over 300 submissions. This has been a great learning experience and has given me a better appreciation for how peer review can improve the quality and rigor of research articles. Sadly it is a minority of researchers who are willing to offer their time to provide well-crafted, thoughtful reports. It is promising to see that publishers including APS and Optica are providing more resources for referees, particularly early career researchers. It would be good to see referee training integrated directly into graduate research programs.

4. Machine learning models for image generation (such as Stable Diffusion) and text generation (ChatGPT) are going to change the world. There's no putting the genie back into the bottle now that anyone can download the trained model weights in a few minutes and run them on their own personal computer (InvokeAI doesn't even require a high end GPU!). Some professions such as graphic artists will be irrevocably changed. Still, the models are not perfect and they often fail in subtle and unpredictable ways, requiring human vetting. Thus, at least in the near term they will be primarily used to enhance productivity, not destroy entire professions.

5. In quantum computing, the most exciting developments for me were several groups proposing efficient classical algorithms for spoofing the results of random quantum circuit sampling experiments and debates over quantum supremacy using quantum topological data analysis.

Stay tuned next year for more on flat bands, Weyl semimetals, (quantum) machine learning, quantum scars, and more blogging. Happy 2023!

PRA seeks a part-time remote Associate Editor

Since the start of the year I have been an Associate Editor at Physical Review A. So far it has been an interesting and enjoyable position, giving me exposure to topics I wouldn't normally read about as part of my own research.

They say that refereeing papers helps you to write better papers. The same is true for journal editorial work.

Even though there is less time for refereeing, editorial work also helps with reviewing papers, since you read many great (and some not-so-great) reports and can see what kinds of comments are useful and how others typically respond to critical comments.

PRA is now recruiting a part-time remote Associate Editor with expertise in quantum information and quantum foundations. The deadline to apply is July 9th, 2022.

Singapore Quantum Jobs

Qove Laboratory seeks postdoctoal fellows and PhD students: designing and building quantum technologies for quantum networks based on superconducting circuits, rare-earth ions, and integrated photonics. This is a newly-funded NRF Fellowship project with funding for 5 years.

Senior Research Fellow / Research Fellow positions at the School of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, Nanyang Technological University on development finite difference time domain methods for coupled electromagnetic and quantum systems. I guess this is related to the new Quantum Science & Engineering Centre announced at the end of last year.

Research Director in Quantum Computing and Quantum Communication at JPMorgan Chase’s Future Lab for Applied Research and Engineering. They are after someone with at least 12 years' relevant experience to investigate applications to finance, AI, optimization, and quantum key distribution.

PRX Quantum seeks an Associate Editor. The part-time Associate Editor is welcomed to maintain their current position–be it in academia, industry, or others, while contributing to PRX Quantum. They should also hold high standards for peer review, and be committed to building an exceptional reputation for the journal. Researchers from anywhere in the world can apply. This is a great opportunity!