prl-revision

PRL Revision (prl-revision)

When to trigger

• One or more APS referee reports have arrived
• You received an editor decision (revise / reject / reject-with-appeal-option)
• You need to write a point-by-point response letter
• You are weighing resubmission versus appeal versus retargeting to a PR journal

Read the decision before drafting

APS decisions vary: invitation to revise, rejection that invites resubmission, or rejection on importance/breadth. Match your strategy to the decision:

| Decision | Strategy |

|-------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|

| Revise / minor | Address every point; revise manuscript; resubmit promptly |

| Reject but resubmission encouraged | Substantive revision + a response showing what changed |

| Reject on importance/breadth (science sound) | Decide: strengthen breadth case + appeal, or retarget PR journal|

| Reject on correctness | Fix the science or retarget; do not appeal a valid technical flaw|

Point-by-point response structure

For each referee comment:

1. Quote the comment verbatim (or faithfully paraphrase).
2. Respond — agree and act, or disagree with evidence.
3. Point to the change — name the exact location ("revised Sec. ..., new Fig. S3, added sentence in para ...").

Conventions that work with APS referees:

• Be courteous and specific; never dismissive, even with a hostile report.
• Quote new manuscript text in the reply so the referee sees the change without hunting.
• Mark changes in the manuscript (color or a marked-up version) per current APS practice.
• If you disagree, win on evidence and physics, not tone — add a control, a calculation, or a citation.
• Respect the length limit: revisions that add material must re-balance via prl-length-management and prl-supplementary.

Worked micro-example: a response entry

Referee: "The claimed effect could arise from heating."

Weak reply: "We are confident heating plays no role."

Strong reply: "We agree this must be excluded. We have added a power-dependence measurement (new Fig. S4): the amplitude is unchanged over a decade of drive power. Sec. III now states: 'The amplitude is power-independent, excluding a thermal origin (SM Sec. S4).'"

The strong reply concedes the concern's legitimacy, answers with a measurement rather than confidence, and quotes the new sentence with its location — the pattern for every entry.

Resubmission packaging

A PRL resubmission is judged as a package:

• Summary of changes — lead with the revision answering the decision letter's central concern.
• One self-contained reply per referee — do not make Referee B hunt through answers to Referee A.
• Length re-certification — added controls count against the deductible budget; state that the revised Letter still passes, or what moved to SM to compensate.
• Timing — resubmit complete rather than fast; a second round typically returns to the same referees.

Handling the breadth/importance rejection specifically

This is the signature PRL outcome. Options:

• Sharpen, don't inflate. Make the broad-interest case concrete (prl-results-framing, prl-cover-letter) — a real cross-field consequence, not louder adjectives.
• Appeal through the defined APS route only if you have a substantive argument the editor/referee missed; appeals are not for re-arguing taste.
• Retarget to Phys. Rev. A–E / PR Research if the breadth case is genuinely weak — often the faster path to publication (prl-scope-fit).

Checklist

• [ ] Every referee point has an explicit response
• [ ] Each response names the exact manuscript change location
• [ ] New text is quoted in the reply for the referee's convenience
• [ ] Disagreements are backed by evidence/physics, not tone
• [ ] A marked-up / change-highlighted manuscript is prepared
• [ ] Added material is re-balanced against the length limit
• [ ] The Letter still stands alone after revision
• [ ] If appealing, the appeal raises a substantive missed point, not taste
• [ ] If retargeting, the right PR journal is chosen via prl-scope-fit

Anti-patterns

• A defensive or curt tone toward a difficult referee
• Claiming to have addressed a point without actually changing the text
• Adding rebuttal material that pushes the Letter over the length limit
• Appealing a sound technical rejection instead of fixing the science
• Re-arguing breadth with adjectives instead of a concrete consequence
• Letting revisions make the Letter depend on the SM

Output format

【Decision type】revise / resubmit-encouraged / breadth-reject / correctness-reject
【Point-by-point】N comments — all addressed with locations?  yes / list gaps
【Tone】courteous + evidence-based?  yes / fix
【Length re-balanced after additions】yes / fix
【Stands alone after revision】yes / fix
【Path】resubmit / appeal (substantive?) / retarget via prl-scope-fit
【Next】prl-submission (resubmit) or prl-scope-fit (retarget)

> Decision categories, appeal procedures, and markup expectations are durable in spirit; verify the current process on the official APS / PRL author page.