---
name: reviews-of-modern-physics
description: Use when targeting Reviews of Modern Physics (RMP) or deciding whether a physics review manuscript fits this largely invited, authoritative synthesis venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
---

# Reviews of Modern Physics (reviews-of-modern-physics)

## Journal positioning

Reviews of Modern Physics is the APS journal of record for definitive, comprehensive reviews of established physics subfields and emerging paradigms. Its Colloquia and Reviews are the authoritative reference that physicists cite when synthesizing a topic rather than reporting new results. The majority of content is solicited by the editors from recognized leaders in the field; unsolicited primary research manuscripts are entirely outside scope. RMP readership spans physics at large — both specialists deepening their command of a topic and non-specialists entering an adjacent area — so every article must be pedagogically lucid and conceptually complete.

This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on the APS site and the RMP submission system.

## When to trigger

- An author has received an invitation from RMP editors to write a Review or Colloquium.
- A physicist is responding to an RMP editorial inquiry and needs to understand the journal's scope, format expectations, and quality bar.
- An author is considering submitting an unsolicited review proposal and needs to know whether RMP or an alternative invited-review venue is appropriate.
- A primary-research manuscript is being mis-targeted here and needs re-routing.

## Scope & topic fit

- Colloquia: focused, relatively concise treatments of a topic of broad current interest, accessible to non-specialists across physics; typically address a conceptual question rather than survey an entire subfield.
- Reviews: comprehensive, definitive surveys of an established area or a rapidly maturing new one, expected to serve as the community reference for years.
- Topics span all of physics: condensed matter, particle and nuclear physics, AMO, quantum information, astrophysics and cosmology, statistical physics, biological physics — breadth of interest to the wider APS community is required.
- Interdisciplinary and foundational topics (e.g., quantum computing foundations, topological phases, gravitational-wave science, AI-in-physics methods) are appropriate when a definitive synthesis would serve the community.
- Primary experimental or theoretical research results not embedded in a broader synthesizing context are outside scope.

## Method & evidence bar

- The review must achieve completeness within its stated scope: major results, competing theoretical frameworks, and unresolved controversies must all be represented with appropriate balance.
- Historical and conceptual context is expected; RMP articles are read for orientation and education, not only reference retrieval.
- All cited claims must trace to the primary literature; the review is the secondary source, not an independent data source.
- Quantitative claims (parameter values, precision bounds, benchmark results) must cite the most current authoritative primary literature; the review authors are responsible for flagging areas where the field remains unsettled.
- Pedagogical derivations of key results are expected to be self-contained and correct; RMP articles are refereed for technical accuracy as well as synthesis quality.

## Structure & house style

- Colloquia typically follow a tighter, more essay-like structure with an accessible introduction; Reviews may use a hierarchical section structure appropriate to a book-chapter level of depth.
- Both article types require a concise abstract that is accessible to the broad physics community, not just the subfield.
- Display items (figures, equations, tables) are numerous and integral; RMP articles are typically long-form and figure-rich by design.
- The conclusion or outlook section should clearly identify open questions, controversies, and future directions — this distinguishes an RMP article from a textbook chapter.
- Reference lists are comprehensive and must include seminal original papers as well as recent developments; citation completeness is a community expectation.

## Official-submission checklist

- Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the official source anchors for this journal family, then cite the current journal-specific page you checked.
- Search the live site for "Reviews of Modern Physics author guidelines" and follow the current APS version.
- Confirm article type (Colloquium vs. Review) with the handling editor before drafting, as length expectations and structure differ significantly.
- Re-check current length norms (Colloquia are substantially shorter than Reviews), figure and table policies, and any LaTeX template requirements.
- Re-check APS data/code/software sharing expectations if computational results are included, and APS open-access licensing options.
- Confirm the editor who issued the invitation is still handling the manuscript; RMP editorial assignments can have long timelines.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

## Pre-submission self-check

- [ ] Confirm receipt of an editorial invitation or explicit editor encouragement before preparing a full manuscript; submitting unsolicited primary data here is a category error.
- [ ] The article synthesizes a field or conceptual question rather than reporting new primary results.
- [ ] The introduction is accessible to a physicist outside the subfield without subfield-jargon barriers.
- [ ] All major competing frameworks and unresolved controversies are represented with balance.
- [ ] The outlook section identifies genuine open questions rather than listing obvious next experiments.
- [ ] Reference coverage is comprehensive; no major community-recognized contributions are omitted.

## Common desk-reject triggers

- Unsolicited primary-research papers submitted to RMP without editorial invitation or prior communication; these are outside scope by design.
- Review manuscripts that cover only the author's own group's results rather than synthesizing the broader field.
- Articles with an introduction inaccessible to physicists outside the specialty, contradicting RMP's cross-physics readership mandate.
- Reviews that do not address competing interpretations or unresolved controversies, presenting only the authors' preferred framework.
- Manuscripts that are essentially a repackaged PhD thesis or grant report rather than a community-oriented synthesis.

## Re-routing decision

Unsolicited primary research in physics belongs at `physical-review-letters` (broad significance, Letter format), `physical-review-x` (high-impact, longer-form), or the appropriate subfield archival journal (`physical-review-b`, `physical-review-d`). For a broad authoritative physics review in the IOP tradition, `reports-on-progress-in-physics` is the closest alternative with a comparable invited-review culture. For a concise conceptual synthesis aimed at a broad non-specialist physics readership, `nature-physics` accepts Reviews and Perspectives in a shorter format.

## Output format

```text
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Reviews of Modern Physics
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <is this an invited synthesis of an established field, not new primary data?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <invitation status / Colloquium vs. Review type / length / reference completeness>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
```