Physical Review E’s Chief Editor on Interdisciplinary Research and Peer Review Challenges

Interdisciplinary science has quickly become a new norm in physics, and cross-pollination between subjects is leading to better questions and more innovative ideas. It’s fitting, then, that the new chief editor of one of physics’ broadest journals seeks to expand Physical Review E into the interstices between physics, biology, chemistry, and computer science.

We spoke with Dario Corradini about the nature of the scientific review process, the increasing internationality of the journal’s leadership and readership, and more.

You’ve been Chief Editor of Physical Review E since April. What’s in store for the journal under your leadership?

We want to expand further into a few topics that we already cover, including soft matter, machine learning and artificial intelligence, and biophysics. To attract more papers in these areas, we are putting in place different strategies tailored to each topic.

We’ve also started thinking about revamping the image of the journal. We’ve served our audiences well over the years, but we want to be more nimble and able to follow the most recent trends in research, so as to be valuable for the next generations of researchers.

Lastly, we want to get even broader in the geographical representation of not just our authors, but our editorial board — especially across Asia. I’ve already contacted several people at different career levels from different parts of the globe who have agreed to serve on our editorial board next year.

You’ve worked and studied in several different countries. Does that inform your role as chief editor?

Yes, definitely. I started in Rome for my Ph.D., then spent two years in Boston, three in Paris, then came back to the U.S. for a position as associate editor of Physical Review X, which I held for nine years. All this gave me lots of colleagues in both the U.S. and Europe, and within the statistical physics community, which is one of the biggest communities served by Physical Review E. Having lived and worked in different countries has also made me appreciate that science is a truly universal endeavor transcending language and cultural barriers.

What was it like transitioning from research into publishing?

When you do research, you’re used to working on a very specific problem or set of problems. You know everything about your project — it’s like your baby, and you’re very focused. But when you become an editor, your horizons expand a lot. You’re exposed to so much more physics. It's definitely daunting at first.

But over time, I developed a sense that my role now is not to understand every single technical detail. For that, I rely on my referees, the technical experts. As an editor, I have to understand if the paper is a good fit for the journal. Not just to support the journal, but to help researchers reach the best audience for their work. There’s a psychology element to this role, too. I have to know what the referees are saying, but I also have to figure out what they aren’t saying. It’s really an investigative job.

Speaking of expanding your horizons, Physical Review E has one of the broadest scopes in the Physical Review portfolio. Why is that valuable to physics research?

It’s true. Among the Physical Review journals, Physical Review E is arguably the broadest in scope. We could have different journals for each niche topic, but physics is ultimately “one.” Many of the concepts used in a certain area can be translated to other contexts, but we all rely on the same physical principles.

I would actually go so far as to say that science is one. Biologists, chemists, mathematicians, and engineers may have different approaches, but they are not alien to each other. Lots of the most interesting research these days is at the interfaces of these different fields. At Physical Review E, we encourage submissions on physics-adjacent research for this reason. If a variety of tangentially related topics are published in the same journal, our readers can more clearly see the connections between fields, and ultimately ask better questions.

If you could chat with each author who submits to Physical Review E, what would you say?

First of all, thank you. Thank you for trusting us with your research. I would also ask for your help. I can sense that there is a crisis with referees. There are not enough researchers offering their time as referees, and peer review only works when people are willing to review papers. I think it’s really important for younger people to act as referees, so it’s equally important for established researchers to train and mentor younger scientists to be good referees. Part of being in the scientific community means offering your time as an expert referee, because all of your papers are published thanks to others who volunteered their time.

We ask authors to suggest referees when they submit, and we really mean it. But we also ask that they avoid suggesting the usual suspects. The big names in the field can only give so much of the time that’s asked of them. Outside of the top experts, there are many researchers who make great referees, including younger scientists.