1.1.1 Mission

Frontiers of Physics (FOP) is dedicated to reviewing the latest and most significant developments across frontier areas of physics, with particular attention to emerging results, topical issues, and interdisciplinary directions, and provides a forum for physicists worldwide to exchange ideas. Its coverage includes quantum computing and quantum information; atomic, molecular, and optical physics; condensed-matter physics, materials science, and related interdisciplinary fields; and particle physics, nuclear physics, astrophysics, and cosmology.

1.1.2 Journal at a Glance

1.2.1 Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board

The journal is headed by an Editor-in-Chief and an Editorial Board composed of internationally recognized scholars. Board members are nominated by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Office and appointed by the responsible authority; they steer the journal's academic direction, commission articles, and oversee overall quality. Terms and rotations follow the journal's charter.

1.2.2 Editorial Office

• conducts initial triage and scope checks and decides whether a submission is sent to the Editorial Board;

• selects and coordinates Editorial Board members and monitors review progress;

• consolidates external and Board review reports, formulates preliminary editorial decisions, and briefs the Editor-in-Chief;

• communicates the Editor-in-Chief's decisions to authors and tracks revisions;

• handles misconduct cases, appeals, errata, and retractions;

• coordinates with authors, reviewers, and the publisher to uphold publishing standards;

• supports journal promotion and outreach.

1.2.3 Editorial Board Responsibilities

• carries out initial review and scope assessment and decides whether a submission is sent for external review;

• selects and coordinates reviewers and monitors review progress;

• weighs review reports, reaches editorial decisions, and reports to the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Office;

• conceives and organizes topical collections;

• supports journal promotion and outreach.

The journal publishes the following article types. The positioning and length requirements of each type are summarized below; detailed writing instructions are provided in Author Guidelines, §4.2.

All submissions follow the standard workflow: submission → initial screening → peer review → editorial decision → acceptance → publication. The Editorial Office may desk-reject manuscripts that fall clearly outside the journal's scope, fall short of quality thresholds, or fail to meet formal requirements. Manuscripts entering peer review are assessed under a double-anonymized protocol; for details of the process and timelines, see Peer Review Policy, §2.

1.5.1 Authorship

All named authors must have made a substantive contribution to the work and take responsibility for the integrity and correctness of its content. The corresponding author is responsible for the submission and for all communication throughout the process. All authors must be aware of and consent to the authorship and its order before submission; any subsequent change to the author list requires the consent of all authors.

1.5.2 Dual Submission and Duplicate Publication

Authors may post their manuscripts on preprint servers such as arXiv.org at the same time as submission. Simultaneous submission to another journal is forbidden, and previously published work must not be republished in substantially identical form. Extensions or reanalyses of previously published results should be declared in the cover letter.

1.5.3 Data Integrity and Originality

Authors must ensure that the data are genuine and reproducible, and must not fabricate, falsify, or selectively present results. Text and figures must be original, and all sources must be properly acknowledged. Manuscripts suspected of misconduct are investigated in line with Peer Review Policy, §2.7.

1.5.4 Conflicts of Interest and Funding Disclosure

Authors must declare any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., funding sources, institutional affiliations, patents, or consulting relationships) in the manuscript. See Author Guidelines, §4.6 for details.

1.6.1 Editorial Duties and Recusal

Editors handle manuscripts with independence, fairness, and confidentiality. Editors must not handle work by themselves, close relatives, or authors with whom they have a conflict of interest; where such a conflict exists, they should recuse themselves and hand the manuscript to another editor.

1.6.2 Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose to the editor any competitive, collaborative, financial, or other relationship with the authors that could affect their assessment, and should decline to review where a significant conflict exists. See Reviewer Guidelines, §5.5.

1.6.3 Author Conflicts of Interest

Authors must truthfully declare any interests relevant to the manuscript at submission, for the information of editors and readers.

The journal encourages authors to provide a data availability statement and, where feasible, to make raw data openly available or to state how they may be obtained. Detailed data and lengthy derivations may be placed in supplementary materials. See Author Guidelines, §4.4 and §4.6.

Errors in published articles that affect the reader's understanding are corrected by means of an erratum, depending on the nature and severity of the error. Where there are serious questions about integrity, the journal may issue an Expression of Concern. Where misconduct is confirmed, the article is retracted in accordance with the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and the retraction is noted on the article.

Authors, reviewers, or readers who have concerns about the editorial process, the handling of a manuscript, or the publication process may lodge a formal complaint with the Editorial Office. Complaints involving misconduct or ethical issues are handled and answered under established procedures. Contact details are provided in Contact Us, §8.

The journal encourages double-anonymized peer review, in which reviewers do not know the identity of the authors and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. The Editorial Office decides the number of reviewers and the number of review rounds on a case-by-case basis. Reviewers may choose to review anonymously or to sign their reviews.

2.2.1 Initial Editorial Screening

The editor performs an initial scope and quality check. Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal's scope, are of clearly insufficient quality, or do not meet formal requirements may be returned before external review.

2.2.2 Reviewer Selection

The relevant Editorial Board member prioritizes reviewers, from China and abroad, with strong expertise in the topic, drawing on authors' recommendations, database matching, and Board suggestions. Normally two or more reviewers are invited.

2.2.3 Recusal and Exclusion

The Editorial Office excludes reviewers who have a conflict of interest or an institutional affiliation with the authors. When recommending reviewers, authors should not suggest their own supervisors or students, colleagues from the same institution, or co-authors or collaborators within the last three years.

The median time from submission to first decision is ~30 days. Reviewers are accordingly expected to submit their reports within the agreed period; reviewers who repeatedly miss deadlines may be temporarily excluded from future invitations. See Reviewer Guidelines, §5.2 for specific deadlines.

  The journal also offers an expedited Editorial Board review track: manuscripts previously reviewed by another journal, submitted together with the review reports, authors' responses, and highlighted revisions, may be prioritized for Editorial Board fast-track review, with an accept or reject recommendation provided within 3–5 days.

2.4.1 Decision Types

• Accept: no changes or only minor changes required;

• Minor revision: the manuscript is revised in response to the review reports;

• Major revision: substantial changes and additions are required, and the revised manuscript may be sent for re-review;

• Reject: the manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or is not suitable for the journal.

2.4.2 Decision Mechanism

The editor reaches a final decision by weighing the reviewers' reports, the quality of the manuscript, and the journal's positioning; no single reviewer's opinion is decisive. Where reports diverge substantially, additional review may be sought. Authors responding to a request for revision must address each point of the review reports (see Author Guidelines, §4.8).

Authors who disagree with a rejection or with the handling of their manuscript may appeal to the Editorial Office within a specified period, stating the grounds and providing supporting evidence. The appeal is assessed by an editor not involved in the original decision, and independent review may be added if necessary. An appeal does not compromise the independence of the review process.

• Invitations and responses: reviewers may accept or decline an invitation; when declining, they are encouraged to suggest a suitable alternative;

• Quality of reports: specific, constructive comments consistent with the data are encouraged;

• Signed review: reviewers may choose to sign their reviews and, where the journal supports it, to make the review record public;

• Confidentiality and the use of AI: see Reviewer Guidelines, §5.5–5.6 and Use of Artificial Intelligence: Ethics and Requirements, §6.

Where plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, or manipulation of the review process is suspected, the Editorial Office initiates an investigation in accordance with the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), verifies the facts with the authors and their institutions, and may take actions including rejection, an Expression of Concern, retraction, or notification of the relevant bodies. The investigation is kept confidential from the parties involved. The underlying principles are set out in Editorial Policy, §1.5.

3.1.1 Sole Publication by Higher Education Press

The journal is published exclusively by Higher Education Press. Following acceptance, authors sign the publication or licensing agreement required by the journal, which defines the rights of Higher Education Press to edit, publish, and distribute the article; the specific terms are those stated in the copyright form included in the acceptance letter.

3.1.2 Allocation of Rights Between Authors and Publisher

Under the current free-access model, articles are freely available to readers but are not open access and are not published under an open license (such as CC BY). The rights retained by authors are those set out in the signed agreement.

3.2.1 Difference Between Free Access and Open Access

Free access means that readers can read or download the article free of charge, but redistribution and derivative use remain subject to the copyright agreement. Open access is typically granted under a Creative Commons license and confers broader rights of copying, distribution, and derivative use. The journal currently offers free access rather than open access, so readers can obtain the full text free of charge.

3.2.2 APC Currently Waived

The journal currently does not charge authors an article processing charge (APC). If the publishing model or fee policy changes, the journal will update the website and notify authors in a timely manner.

3.3.1 Permitted Uses by Authors

• using the accepted or published version for personal teaching, internal communication, and research presentations;

• displaying the article on personal academic pages, institutional repositories, and at conferences;

• citing one's own articles in teaching materials or theses, with proper attribution.

3.3.2 Self-Archiving Policy

Authors may post their submissions on preprint servers (e.g., arXiv) in accordance with journal policy and, following publication, archive the published version on personal websites or institutional repositories as the journal requires; the specific versions permitted (submitted, accepted, or final) and the applicable timing are set out in the copyright agreement.

Where authors wish to reproduce third-party copyrighted figures, tables, or lengthy quotations in their manuscripts, they must obtain prior written permission from the rights holder and acknowledge the source. Reuse of material already published in the journal requires permission from the Editorial Office. See Author Guidelines, §4.4.

• How to apply: requests for reuse should be submitted via Complaints and Contact, §1.9;

• Processing time: the Editorial Office and publisher respond within the agreed period;

• Attribution: any reuse must fully cite the source and the article's bibliographic reference.

Unauthorized commercial redistribution, large-scale copying, or false attribution of journal articles may constitute infringement; the publisher reserves the right to enforce its rights through legal means. Readers and authors are expected to comply with applicable copyright laws in their jurisdiction.

• confirm that the topic falls within the journal's scope (see Editorial Policy, §1.1);

• confirm the article type and its length requirements (see Editorial Policy, §1.3);

• verify authorship, conflicts of interest, and funding statements;

• prepare the cover letter, recommended reviewers, and supplementary materials;

• confirm data availability and that the raw material is reproducible.

The length, figure and table requirements, and structural expectations for the different article types are as follows (consistent with Editorial Policy, §1.3):

4.3.1 Format-free submission statement

Authors may submit their papers in any scholarly format or layout. Original files can be in Word or LaTeX. There are no strict formatting requirements, but all manuscripts must include the essential elements: abstract, author affiliation, main text, figures, tables, funding information, references, and supplementary materials. The addition of ORCID numbers is recommended but not essential. Figures can be embedded within the text or placed at the end of the document, and figures should be vector graphics with high resolution.

Spelling can be either US or UK English, as long as it is consistent throughout. When authors submit their manuscripts onto the online submission system (https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/fop), only PDF files are required. After the manuscript has been reviewed and formally accepted, authors will be asked to provide further details of the manuscripts. Please note that, regardless of the original file format of submission, an editable version of the article must be supplied at the revision stage.

4.3.2 Title and Abstract

The title should be concise, accurate, and searchable. The abstract should summarize the background, methods, main results, and conclusions, be self-contained, and avoid references to formulas or figures that are not explained in the text. Authors should also provide an abstract graphic, either a key results figure from the manuscript or a newly prepared figure summarizing the main findings.

4.3.3 Main Text

Research articles are expected to follow a structure such as Introduction–Methods–Results–Discussion–Conclusion; reviews should provide a clear chapter framework; view-and-perspective articles should be opinion-led and tightly organized. A short appendix may be added, in which figures and tables are numbered independently. Lengthy derivations, audio and video files, raw data, and other supplementary materials are made available electronically on the article's main page.

4.3.4 Acknowledgments, Funding, and Author Contributions

Include an acknowledgment of funding, collaboration, and discussion at the end of the article; declare author contributions (optional) and any potential conflicts of interest (see Editorial Policy, §1.5).

4.4.1 Image Resolution Requirements

To ensure clarity in both print and online display, the resolution requirements for different types of images are as follows:

Text within figures should be set in Times New Roman, with a minimum height sufficient for legibility (generally no smaller than ~6 pt). TIFF, PNG, EPS, or PDF formats are preferred; heavily compressed low-quality formats should be avoided.

4.4.2 Figure and Table Preparation

• figures and tables should be clear, legible, and self-explanatory, with complete captions and continuous numbering;

• images of the same type within a manuscript should be consistent in resolution and format;

• axes, legends, units, and labels should be complete and legible and should not overlap;

• third-party material must be used with permission and its source acknowledged (see Copyright Policy, §3.4).

4.4.3 Data Requirements

Authors are encouraged to provide a data availability statement and supplementary materials. Detailed data and lengthy derivations may be placed in supplementary materials, while the main text provides the essential methods and key results.

References should follow the journal's prescribed format, with in-text citations corresponding one-to-one to the reference list. All bibliographic details (authors, title, journal, year, volume and issue, pages, or DOI) must be complete and accurate. Formats and examples for the different types of references are as follows:

The above are general format examples; the journal's current reference style prevails. The format should be consistent wherever the same reference is cited.

Manuscripts should be written in clear, professional language. Submissions must include a conflict-of-interest statement, a funding statement, and an author-contribution statement, together with a data availability statement where appropriate. For research-integrity requirements, see Editorial Policy, §1.5; any use of generative AI must be disclosed as set out in Use of Artificial Intelligence: Ethics and Requirements, §6.

4.7.1 Submission System and Materials

Manuscripts are submitted through the journal's online submission system, together with figures, supplementary materials, a cover letter, and information on recommended reviewers. For initial submission, a full-text PDF is sufficient; once the manuscript is formally accepted, the source files (Word or LaTeX) and figure files should be sent to the Editorial Office. As the journal uses double-anonymized review, please remove all identifying information (author names and affiliations, names of collaborators mentioned in the acknowledgments, and any author information in the cover letter). Please review the checklist in §4.1 before submitting.

4.7.2 Recommended Reviewers

Authors may recommend suitable reviewers, but should not suggest candidates with a conflict of interest (e.g., supervisors or students, colleagues at the same institution, or co-authors or collaborators within the last three years). Whether a recommended reviewer is used is at the discretion of the Editorial Office.

After a manuscript has been reviewed under the procedure described in Peer Review Policy, §2, the editor conveys the review reports to the authors. When revision is requested, authors should respond point by point (Response to reviewers), indicate the changes, and submit the revised manuscript within the allotted time; manuscripts requiring major revision may be sent for re-review.

• Acceptance notice: sets out the publication arrangements and the requirements for signing the copyright or licensing agreement (see Copyright Policy, §3);

• Proofreading: authors check the page proofs within the allotted time and confirm the final version;

• Publication: the article is published online with a DOI; readers can browse the HTML and download the full-text PDF free of charge (free access).

After publication, authors may self-archive and disseminate their article within the permitted scope (see Copyright Policy, §3.3). Errata should be issued in accordance with Editorial Policy, §1.8.

Reviewers play a key role in safeguarding the journal's academic quality. Upon receiving an invitation, a reviewer should assess whether they have the relevant expertise, whether a conflict of interest exists, and whether they can complete the review on time, and accept or decline accordingly (when declining, they are encouraged to suggest a suitable alternative).

• after accepting an invitation, submit the review report within the agreed period (normally a few weeks);

• if a delay is unavoidable, inform the Editorial Office promptly;

• reviewers who repeatedly miss deadlines or decline too frequently may be temporarily excluded from future invitations (see Peer Review Policy, §2.3).

A review report is expected to include the following parts:

• Assessment: an overall judgment of the value, originality, and quality of the manuscript;

• Report: point-by-point, specific comments and suggestions addressed to the authors and the editor;

• Recommendation: accept / minor revision / major revision / reject, and whether a re-review is desired;

• Comments to Editors (optional): confidential comments intended only for the editor.

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript on originality, the soundness of the methods, the consistency of the data with the conclusions, the clarity of the presentation, the importance to the field, and its fit with the journal's scope. Comments should be specific, constructive, and consistent with the data.

• treat the manuscript, data, review reports, and all correspondence as strictly confidential and do not disclose them to any third party;

• disclose to the editor (or decline to review) any competitive, collaborative, financial, or other relationship with the authors;

• do not use unpublished information obtained through the review process for improper gain.

Reviewers must not submit manuscripts, data, or review reports to generative AI tools, and must not use AI to write or formulate review conclusions — doing so violates the duty of confidentiality and cannot guarantee the professional independence of the review. Detailed requirements are given in Use of Artificial Intelligence: Ethics and Requirements, §6.3.

Reviewers must not plagiarize, disclose, or make premature use of the content of the manuscript. They must not reveal their own or others' reviewer identity (unless they have chosen to sign their review). Where suspected misconduct comes to light, reviewers should flag it to the editor. The relevant handling procedures are set out in Peer Review Policy, §2.7.

This policy applies to the use of generative AI (such as large language models, AI summarization, AI editing, and AI image generation) at any stage of the manuscript's lifecycle, from writing and submission through review and publication. The guiding principles are:

• truthful disclosure: any substantive use of AI in producing content or informing judgment must be disclosed;

• individual responsibility: AI cannot be an author or a reviewer; authors and reviewers bear full responsibility for the content;

• confidentiality: unpublished manuscripts, data, or review information must not be submitted to any external AI tool;

• authenticity and verifiability: AI-generated content must not replace raw data or genuine experiments, and must not be used to fabricate or embellish results.

In addition, the journal aligns its AI governance with internationally recognized principles for the responsible use of AI in scholarly publishing, namely: protecting the integrity of the scientific record; responsible stewardship of content and data entrusted to the journal, including intellectual property, privacy, confidentiality, attribution, and provenance; human responsibility, with AI serving only as a tool that assists and accelerates rather than replaces human judgment; transparency about how AI is used and the expectation that substantive AI use in scholarly works be appropriately disclosed; fair and responsible evaluation of each AI application against its purpose, potential benefits, rights impact, and risks; responsible innovation that creates value for the research community and supports sustainable publishing; and governance with oversight, accountability, and continuous improvement.

6.2.1 Permitted Uses

• language editing, grammar checking, and layout assistance that do not alter the substance of the research;

• auxiliary tasks such as literature retrieval and information organization, with responsibility for the accuracy of citations and data;

• technical assistance as a research tool, provided the results are verified by the authors.

• use of AI tools to improve the readability or language style of the manuscript, where such use does not affect the findings or conclusions of the work (no disclosure required);

6.2.2 Required Disclosure

Where generative AI has been used substantively in writing the manuscript, processing data, preparing figures or tables, or generating text, authors must disclose the purpose and extent of the use in the cover letter or in the author-contribution statement. Content drafted with AI assistance must be reviewed and approved by the authors and acknowledged in the appropriate place (e.g., the methods or acknowledgments). Concealing the use of AI, or using AI improperly in a way that results in misconduct or copyright disputes, may lead to rejection or retraction and may be recorded as a breach of academic integrity.

The disclosure should be made in the Methods section (or an equivalent section) and must specify: the name, version, and provider of each AI tool used; the purpose for which each tool was used; and the reasons for choosing the tool for the corresponding task. Authors should retain original data and image files throughout submission and publication, as the journal may request them for verification where the validity of figures or data is in question.

6.2.3 Prohibited Uses

• listing AI as an author or co-author (AI does not qualify for authorship);

• using AI to fabricate, falsify, or replace genuine experimental data;

• using AI to generate unverified citations, images, or figures;

• submitting AI-generated content as original author work without verification.

• using AI to generate references or citations that do not exist in authentic sources, which constitutes a breach of publication ethics;

• using generative AI to create, alter, or manipulate original research data or images in ways that compromise their accuracy or interpretation.

6.2.4 Best Practices

• Verify all AI-assisted output to ensure that it is scientifically reliable, uses standard terminology, and that factual statements are supported by authoritative sources;

• remain aware that generative AI outputs may vary between runs and may contain fabricated content ("hallucinations"), which can affect the reproducibility of results;

• review the terms of service of AI tools before use, paying attention to the ownership of content rights and data-use policies, and provide attribution where required.

Reviewers must not submit manuscripts, data, review reports, or related correspondence to generative AI tools (including locally deployed large language models), and must not use AI to write or formulate review opinions. Doing so violates the duty of confidentiality and may compromise the professional independence of the review. Where there is reasonable ground to believe that a reviewer has used AI in violation of this policy to generate or conduct peer review, the journal may cease inviting that reviewer and may seek alternative reviewers to reassess the manuscript. See Reviewer Guidelines, §5.6.

Editors may use AI for routine tasks such as language checking, format checking, and summarization, but must not submit unpublished manuscript content or review information to external AI tools. Editorial judgments about manuscripts and the review process must be made independently; AI must not replace the editor's scholarly judgment.

Authors and reviewers bear full responsibility for the authenticity, originality, and confidentiality of what they submit. Where this policy is violated, the Editorial Office will, in accordance with Peer Review Policy, §2.7 and Editorial Policy, §1.5, take action as appropriate to the circumstances, which may include rejection, an Expression of Concern, retraction, or suspension of reviewing privileges.

The Editorial Office will maintain appropriate governance and oversight of AI practices, review this policy periodically as AI technologies and community expectations evolve, and keep authors, reviewers, and readers informed of material updates.

• Which article type suits my manuscript? — See Editorial Policy, §1.3 and Author Guidelines, §4.2.

• Are there word or length limits? — The specifications for each type are given in Author Guidelines, §4.2.

• How long until I receive the first decision? — The median time from submission to first decision is 30 days; see Peer Review Policy, §2.3.

• Is there a submission fee? — No; the APC is currently waived (see Copyright Policy, §3.2).

• How should I prepare the cover letter and recommended reviewers? — See Author Guidelines, §4.7.

• Do I need to declare the use of AI for language editing? — Yes; see Use of Artificial Intelligence: Ethics and Requirements, §6.2.

• Is the review anonymous? — Yes, double-anonymized; see Peer Review Policy, §2.1.

• May a reviewer decline or request an extension? — See Reviewer Guidelines, §5.1–5.2.

• How should a review report be written? — See Reviewer Guidelines, §5.3.

• May AI be used to assist review? — No; see Reviewer Guidelines, §5.6 and Use of Artificial Intelligence: Ethics and Requirements, §6.3.

• How can authors appeal a rejection? — See Peer Review Policy, §2.5.

• Is the article available free of charge? — Yes; free access, but not open access (see Copyright Policy, §3.2).

• May authors post their article on a personal website or in a repository? — See Copyright Policy, §3.3.

• May readers share the full text or use it for teaching? — See Copyright Policy, §3.3.

• How do I request to reuse a figure or content from an article? — See Copyright Policy, §3.4–3.5.

• Will the APC be reinstated? — See the latest announcements on the website; Copyright Policy, §3.2.

• What is the journal's impact factor and indexation? — See the details on the journal’s website: https://journal.hep.com.cn/fop/.

• How do I subscribe to or follow the journal? — Subscribe to the newsletter and follow official channels; see Contact Us, §8.

• How do I contact the Editorial Office? — Via Contact Us, §8.