---
name: prl-writing-style
description: Use when polishing the prose of a Physical Review Letters manuscript for APS house style, concision, precise notation, and out-of-subfield readability. Polishes language; does not restructure the result or manage length budget.
---

# PRL Writing Style (prl-writing-style)

## When to trigger

- Prose is wordy, hedged, or jargon-dense
- Notation is inconsistent or symbols are undefined on first use
- An out-of-subfield physicist would stumble on the opening
- The draft uses long subordinate clauses where a Letter wants directness
- You are in late polish, after the result, figures, and SM are stable

## APS house-style essentials

- **Concision is a feature, not a constraint.** A Letter says what it must and stops. Every sentence should advance the central claim.
- **Active, direct voice** where it sharpens meaning; "We measure ..." / "The data show ..." beats passive circumlocution.
- **Define every symbol on first use**; keep notation consistent across Letter, figures, and SM.
- **Spell out acronyms on first use**; avoid undefined subfield jargon in the abstract and opening.
- **SI units**, consistent significant figures, and proper math typesetting.
- **Reference style** follows the current APS format; cite the prior work that establishes importance and the work the reader needs to trust the result.

## Concision moves

| Wordy pattern                                  | Tightened                                  |
|------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
| "It is important to note that X"               | "X"                                        |
| "In order to"                                  | "To"                                       |
| "We have performed measurements of"            | "We measure"                               |
| "Due to the fact that"                         | "Because"                                  |
| Three hedges in one sentence                   | one calibrated qualifier                   |
| Background paragraph before the result          | one-sentence context, then the result      |
| Restating the figure in prose                  | interpret the figure, don't transcribe it   |

## Readability for a broad audience

PRL's broad-interest gate is also a *writing* requirement: a condensed-matter referee may read an AMO Letter. So:

- Open with physics a non-specialist understands before introducing subfield notation.
- Gloss specialized concepts in one clause rather than assuming them.
- Put the physical interpretation next to every key equation or number.
- Avoid acronym soup; prefer the spelled-out concept when space allows.

## Precision discipline

- State claims at the strength the evidence supports — neither over- nor under-claiming.
- "Significantly" should mean statistically significant, not "a lot."
- Quote uncertainties with every headline number.
- Match tense conventions: present for established facts, past for what you did.

## Checklist

- [ ] Every sentence advances the central claim; no padding
- [ ] All symbols defined on first use; notation consistent throughout
- [ ] Acronyms spelled out on first use; abstract is jargon-light
- [ ] Opening readable by an out-of-subfield physicist
- [ ] Physical interpretation accompanies key equations/numbers
- [ ] Claims calibrated to the evidence (no over/under-claiming)
- [ ] SI units and consistent significant figures
- [ ] References follow current APS format

## Anti-patterns

- "Letterese" that is dense and unreadable rather than crisp
- Undefined symbols or acronyms, especially in the abstract
- Hedging stacks ("may possibly suggest that perhaps ...")
- Prose that transcribes a figure instead of interpreting it
- Subfield jargon in the opening that excludes the broad audience
- Overclaiming significance the data do not support

## Output format

```
【Concision pass】padding removed?  yes / list
【Notation】all symbols defined, consistent?  yes / fix
【Broad readability】opening accessible out-of-subfield?  yes / fix
【Interpretation by every key number】yes / fix
【Claim calibration】matched to evidence?  yes / fix
【Next】prl-length-management (fit limit) or prl-cover-letter
```

> Reference and typesetting conventions evolve — verify current APS style on the official PRL author page.