Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The journal Physics of Elementary Particles and Atomic Nuclei, Letters, brief name Particles and Nuclei, Letters, publishes the articles with results of the original theoretical, experimental, scientific-technical, methodical and applied research. Subject-matter of articles covers the principal fields of research at JINR:


  • Physics of elementary particles and atomic nuclei. Theory;
  • Physics of elementary particles and atomic nuclei. Experiment;
  • Physics and technique of accelerators;
  • Methods of physical experiment;
  • Physics of solid state and condensed matter;
  • Computer technologies in physics;
  • Radiobiology, ecology and nuclear medicine;
  • Neutron physics of low energies;
  • Physics of low temperatures.


Section Policies


Peer Review Process

All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. To save time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Other papers are rejected promptly without external review.

All contributions that satisfy the above-mentioned criteria are sent to a reviewer, selected by the editors. In some cases, more reviewers can be assigned to the paper.


Become a Reviewer

When the editor thinks a submitted manuscript may be appropriate for you to review,  you will receive an email with an invitation to review and additional information about how to access the manuscript from the website and how to prepare and submit your review from the site as well.


Review Guidelines

The typical period of time allowed for reviews is two weeks. If reviewers anticipate a longer delay than previously expected, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternatives.

The primary purpose of the review is to provide the editors with the information needed to reach a decision.

The referee agreed to conduct a review should judge the manuscript regarding its

  1. Correspondence to the topics of PEPAN Letters.
  2. The degree of innovation.
  3. Validity.
  4. Readability for a nonspecialist.

The review should instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable.

As far as possible, a negative review should explain to the authors the weaknesses of their manuscript, so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the decision and see in broad terms what needs to be done to improve the manuscript for publication elsewhere.

If the reviewer believes that a manuscript would not be suitable for publication, his/her report to the author should be as brief as is consistent with enabling the author to understand the reason for the decision.

The referee also gives a recommendation for the editor that the manuscript

  1. can be published in PEPAN Letters as written;
  2. can be published in PEPAN Letters after minor revision;
  3. should be reconsidered for PEPAN Letters after extensive revision;
  4. should not be reconsidered for PEPAN Letters.

After receiving the referee report(s) the editor(s) make a decision based on the review's advice

  1. Accept Submission: The submission will be accepted without revisions.
  2. Revisions Required: The submission will be accepted after minor changes have been made. The next round of review is not required.
  3. Resubmit for Review: The submission needs to be re-worked, but with significant changes, may be accepted. It will require a second round of review, however.
  4. Decline Submission: The submission will not be published in the journal.

The ultimate decision whether to publish is the responsibility of the editor.

ISSN: 1814-5973