What the IOP Journal of Physics Photonics Actually Is
The Institute of Physics publishes a journal called Journal of Physics Photonics. It covers experimental and theoretical work across the full breadth of photonics — from integrated photonic circuits to quantum optical systems, metasurfaces, nonlinear optics, and biophotonics. It is an open access journal, which means every published article carries a CC-BY license and authors pay an APC. The APC currently runs around £2,500–£3,000 depending on institutional agreements. That matters when you are deciding where to submit. People often conflate this journal with other IOP optics titles like Journal of Optics or Optics Express. They are distinct. Photonics is newer, broader in scope, and has a faster turnaround than the legacy titles. The impact factor sits in the mid-range for photonics journals — roughly 4.0–5.0 in recent years — which places it above some society journals but below the high-visibility optics reviews. If your work is solid incremental photonics rather than a field-changing result, this journal is a reasonable target. If you are chasing maximum citations, look elsewhere. I have submitted to this journal and edited manuscripts for colleagues who did as well. The review process is typically two rounds. The first review cycle usually takes about 4–6 weeks. That is competitive for photonics. The second round, if needed, tends to be faster. But the editorial office is strict about scope. I once submitted a paper on plasmonic sensing that leaned heavily into material chemistry rather than photonic device physics. The editor desk-rejected it within three days and suggested Nanoscale instead. That happened because the manuscript did not foreground photonics. I learned to frame the photonic mechanism in the abstract and introduction before sending anything out.
How to Submit Correctly the First Time
The submission portal is Editorial Manager. I know that sounds obvious, but a significant number of rejections at the administrative check stage come from authors who skip the formatting rules. Here is what you need to do before you hit submit. Your manuscript file must be clean. Use the IOP LaTeX template or Word template from their author center. Do not embed figures inside the text body. Put them at the end. The template handles references automatically if you use their .bib style, so there is no reason to manually format citations. I have seen authors paste citations in Nature style and then wonder why the production team takes a week just to fix references. The covering letter is not optional fluff. The editor reads it. State clearly what category your paper falls under — whether it is a regular article, letter, or review. Mention the novelty in one paragraph. Name the key photonic mechanism or discovery. If your work bridges two subfields, say so explicitly. I once watched a paper on topological photonics get stalled in review because the reviewer did not understand the connection to integrated optics, and the author had not made that link in the cover letter. A thirty-word explanation in the letter would have prevented that entirely.
Understanding the Review Process
Reviews are single-blind. Reviewers know the authors; authors do not know the reviewers. This is standard but worth noting because it affects how you write your rebuttal. Be direct. Do not pad your responses with polite hedging. If a reviewer asks for additional data, provide it or explain why it is not feasible. Vague excuses like "we did not have access to equipment" read poorly. Instead, say "We attempted X measurement but Y constraint prevented it. We have added a discussion in Section Z acknowledging this limitation." The peer review focuses on three things: technical accuracy, significance within photonics, and clarity. Technical accuracy is non-negotiable. I have seen papers rejected because the simulation parameters were inconsistent with the experimental setup. Authors ran finite-difference time-domain simulations with boundary conditions that did not match the fabricated device geometry. The reviewer caught it. The fix requires careful alignment of simulation and experiment descriptions, which most groups skip. Spend time on this. Significance is harder to gauge. The editors do not require ground-breaking results. They want the work to advance the field by a meaningful step. A well-executed experiment with a clear photonic insight is sufficient. Redundant parameter sweeps without physical interpretation are not. When I evaluate submissions informally, I look for whether the paper changes how someone would design a photonic component. If it does, it has a shot.
Get the Full Details
Open Access and Copyright
Since the journal is fully open access, every accepted paper is published under a Creative Commons Attribution license. You retain copyright. IOP does not ask you to transfer rights. This is different from subscription journals where you sign away publication rights. For funding compliance, this matters. Many grant bodies require CC-BY output. If your funder has a specific open access mandate, this journal satisfies it without additional agreements. The APC is payable after acceptance. Some institutions have transformative agreements with IOP that cover the cost. Check yours before you submit. If your institution does not have a deal, budget for the fee. The amount changes periodically, and there is no discount for corresponding authors who are also first authors. I learned this the hard way when my postdoc assumed the fee would be halved because there was only one corresponding author. It was not.
Common Pitfalls That Slow Publication
Figure quality is the most frequent bottleneck. Photonics papers rely heavily on visual data — field profiles, dispersion diagrams, device schematics, measurement setups. Low-resolution figures or those with illegible axis labels trigger requests for revision that add days or weeks. Export figures at 600 dpi minimum. Use vector formats for line art. RGB for color figures, CMYK only if specifically requested during proofing. Another issue is excessive jargon. The journal spans multiple photonics subfields. A reviewer specializing in nonlinear optics may not be familiar with terminology from integrated quantum photonics. Define terms on first use. Do not assume cross-disciplinary familiarity. I once spent two hours rewriting an introduction for a colleague because the original used "group index engineering" without explaining how it differed from the standard definition in the integrated optics context. The reviewer flagged it as unclear. Clear writing prevents this. A less obvious problem is reference overload. Authors sometimes cite fifteen papers for a statement that needs three. This slows down reviewers and inflates the bibliography without adding value. Cite the primary sources and the most relevant recent work. Remove historical surveys unless they are directly relevant to the specific claim.
After Acceptance: Proofs and Corrections
Proofs are sent via email within a few days of acceptance. You typically have forty-eight hours to return corrections. Read them carefully. The production team is efficient, but typographical errors still occur — especially in equations and figure captions. I always check every equation against the manuscript source file. Symbols get swapped during typesetting more often than you would expect. A misplaced subscript in a photonics paper can change the physical meaning entirely. Article publishing charges are processed after proof approval. The corresponding author receives an invoice. Payment can be made by credit card or via institutional transfer. If your institution uses a central payments office, this step can take longer than expected. Initiate the payment request early to avoid delays in online publication. The final published article appears on IOPscience immediately upon proof approval. There is no embargo period because the journal is fully open access. The version of record includes the DOI, metadata, and full text. You can share this version freely on preprint servers, institutional repositories, and personal websites. I recommend uploading to arXiv before submission if your community expects it. Many photonics researchers check arXiv first.
There are tradeoffs to consider before submitting. The journal is selective but not as competitive as Nature Photonics or Optica. This means acceptance is achievable for solid work, but it also means the visibility is moderate. If your lab prioritizes high citation counts for promotion, you may want to target higher-impact venues. If your priority is rapid open access publication with reasonable review times, this journal fits that need. The APC is a real cost, so weigh it against your funding situation and career goals. I have also seen authors use this journal as a secondary publication venue after rejection from a higher-tier journal. That works if the work is still strong. But do not submit there first solely because the APC seems manageable. Choose the journal based on scientific fit, not just cost. The review quality and audience reach matter more than the fee structure in the long run. One practical tip that saves time: prepare your supporting information file at the same time as the main manuscript. Supplementary data, additional simulations, and extended methods sections are often requested during review. Having them ready prevents delays. I always structure my supplementary material with clear section headings and self-contained figure captions. Reviewers appreciate this, and it reduces the back-and-forth that prolongs acceptance.
