The Journals are published by the Faculty of Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, the Scientific Council and the dean of which have the final responsibility for the Journals. The Editor in Chief of each journal possess delegated responsibility for overall policy matters concerning the specific journal. The editors of each specific journal are responsible for the scientific content and editorial matters relating to the Journal.
Editorial policy is guided by the following statement: "It is the policy of the physics journals published by the Faculty of Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, that they accept for publication those manuscripts that significantly advance physics and have been found to be scientifically sound, important to the field, and in satisfactory form. This is to be implemented as fairly and efficiently as possible and without regard to national boundaries.”
Each Journal has an Editorial Board whose members are appointed for three-year terms by the Editor in Chief upon recommendation of the editors, after consultation with the Scientific Council where appropriate. Board members play an important role in the editorial management of the Journal. They lend advice on editorial policy and on specific papers for which special assistance is needed, participate in the formal appeals process (see section on Author Appeals), and give input on the selection of referees and the identification of new referees.
Each Journal has its own list of covered scientific topics, which is discussed by the Editorial Board and approved by the Editor in Chief. If a manuscript submitted to a specific Journal is on a topic not within its purview, but may be suitable for another Journal published by the Faculty of Physics, the editors may transfer the paper to the appropriate journal and inform the author(s) of that transfer. Otherwise, such manuscript is a subject to be rejected.
The Journals publish new results. Thus, prior publication of the same results generally will preclude consideration of a later paper. Confirmation of previously published results of unusual importance can be considered as new, as can significant null results. Papers advancing new theoretical views on fundamental principles or theories must contain convincing arguments that the new predictions and interpretations are distinguishable from existing knowledge, at least in principle, and do not contradict established experimental results.
Papers should be clearly written in good scientific language, in a style consistent with that of the journal. Special attention should be paid to readability, so as to render papers understandable to readers outside a narrow specialty. New terminology should be introduced only when clearly needed.
Publication of ongoing work in a series of papers should be avoided. Instead, a single comprehensive article should be published.
Readers benefit from complete referencing, which is necessary to place any work in the context of the current state of research. Authors should therefore make every effort to ensure that their citations of previously published work are comprehensive at the time of submission. This includes references to books and to published conference proceedings that contain more than abstracts. Authors should also add to the references any works published during the course of the review process.
The Journals publish reviews and regular articles. The sections are distinguished by the different purposes for which the papers are intended.
Each paper must have an abstract.
Usually one referee is selected initially by the editors for each manuscript; there are exceptions. Referee reports are advisory to the editors, but are generally transmitted by the editors to the authors, and so should be written in a collegial manner. The editors may withhold or edit these reports for cause. If in the judgment of the editors a paper is clearly unsuitable for the Journal, it will be rejected without external review; authors of such papers have the same right to appeal as do other authors.
Any resubmittal should be accompanied by a summary of the changes made, and a brief response to all recommendations and criticisms. This material will normally be forwarded to reviewers, and so should be written in a collegial manner as well. Remarks that authors wish to address solely to the editors should be clearly identified and separated from the summary and response.
A manuscript may be sent to additional referees if warranted. In most cases the new referee will be provided with previous correspondence on the manuscript, but not with the identity of the previous referee(s). Editorial Board members, however, may receive this information.
After acceptance of a manuscript, if further information that seems to warrant investigation is received, the editors will regard it as an obligation to reconsider their decision.
When a manuscript has several authors, one of them, the corresponding author, should be designated to receive and respond to correspondence from the editors. This designation can be changed upon notification of the editors. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to represent all those involved with the work reported.
By submitting the manuscript, the corresponding author certifies:
Authors may not present data and other results obtained by others as if they were their own, nor may authors incorporate without attribution text from another work (by themselves or others), even when summarizing past results or background material. If a direct quotation is appropriate, the quotation should be clearly indicated as such and the original source should be properly cited. Papers that have been found to be in violation of this rule will be rejected. In such cases, resubmission of the manuscript, even with the plagiarized text removed, is not ordinarily allowed. However, the editors may allow exceptions to this policy if warranted by special circumstances.
Authors may request that particular individuals not be chosen as referees. Such requests are usually honored, although it is customary to give authors whose work is criticized in a manuscript an opportunity to respond to the criticism. Authors are welcome to submit a list of experts whom they consider especially suited to referee their paper. Such a list is particularly useful when a manuscript treats a highly specialized subject on which papers are infrequently published. The editors, however, are not constrained to select a referee from that list.
Authors may appeal a rejection of their paper by the editors. In the case of a formal appeal, the paper and all relevant information, including the identities of the referees, will be sent to a member of the Editorial Board. The Board member may review the case on the existing record or may seek additional expert opinion. The Board member will present an advisory opinion to the editors, which will be sent to authors and/or referees with the Board member's name.
The purpose of the appeal process is to review the editorial decision to reject the manuscript with the information at hand; it is not another round of review. Therefore, adjudication of an appeal is based on the version of the manuscript that was rejected; no revisions can be introduced at this stage. Authors are, however, free to describe possible revisions in their cover letter.