sciencereport期刊

science reports影响因子：正常影响因子应该在5~10之间，Nature系列刊物的档次分布为： Nature 及Nature 学科系列：20+ Nature Communications：10~20 Scientific Reports：5~10 此刊要求文章具有一定创新性。审稿意见具体明确，编辑认真负责。总体看，已经在Sci Rep上发表的文章质量上乘。影响因子肯定会涨，比PLOS ONE要好，影响因子应该能到4，5左右。扩展资料： scientific reports这个期刊的发展前景一般，二类综合期刊。刊载量在2014将达到3000。以后还会增加。不能因为有几个好的实验室在上面发文，就是说这个期刊多牛，事实上，plos one上也又很大大牛的文章。 Scientific Reports 是任何人都可以公开访问的，发表在技术上可靠的、各领域内的专业人员感兴趣的原始研究论文，其相关内容的访问不受任何限制。

sciencereport杂志

scientific report杂志由 NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP 出版或管理。 ISSN号：2045-23222014年出的影响因子大约在5。2013年出版的论文总数是2012年的3倍。2015年出的影响因子估计也会在5左右。再往后也许会涨一些。但是估计不会到7的。scientific reports这个期刊的发展前景一般，二类综合期刊。刊载量在2014将达到3000。以后还会增加。不能因为有几个好的实验室在上面发文，就是说这个期刊多牛，事实上，plos one上也又很大大牛的文章。事实上，我从来也没认为plos one是个差期刊。而且，客观的说，我认为只有差文章，没有差期刊。即便是sf的大哥nature comm，人们也逐渐认识清楚了其低位。从开始的一片谩骂，到后来追捧，到现在的理性。nc今年刊载量达到2000，而且还再扩。所以对他抱有太高的幻想将不切实际。近两年影响因子 2013年度 2012年度

我的感觉，对于工程领域，审稿很严。我做的是一个“在振动台上测试了典型的 HSR 桥梁，以评估在高强度地震（例如最大考虑地震 (MCE)）中的抗震性能”的研究。审稿意见有54条。大家看看：Reviewer Comments:Reviewer 1The manuscript under consideration presents an investigate on the seismic performance of typical RERSCSS concrete pier used in HSRB with varying seismic strength and design parameters through a series of shaking table authors carried out a series of shaking table tests on RERSCSS concrete piers (M1-M9). The similarity relation between the test model and prototype is given based on dimensional analysis. Displacement, acceleration and strain sensors were deployed for model response following points should be addressed before it can be considered for analyses (part 3) should be further organized and underscored. The following issues require careful revision:[1] The description of experimental phenomena should be supported by experimental photographs, such as part .[2] The pictures given in the manuscript should be analyzed as necessary rather than simply presented to the reader, such as Fig 11.[3] Lines 351-358. The authors discussed the acceleration growth rates. But the manuscript lacks the necessary description of the acceleration growth rates. Only the peak acceleration of the top is given (Fig 12), but the bottom is missing. This is very confusing.[4] The analysis of part is meaningless. The difference in stiffness between the two directions is obvious.[5]  Fig 14 is confusing. What’s the meaning of the pink line and the shadow? The authors discussed the influence of longitudinal reinforcement rate on the energy dissipation performance according to M2, M3 and M7. While, they differ not only in factor of longitudinal reinforcement rate, but also in factor of axial load ratio and volumetric stirrup ratio. This should be further elaborated.[6] 2. Some pictures in the article should be redesigned. Fig. 9, 14, 15, 19. What the authors want to reflect through the picture is not clear.[7] 3. There is some overlap between the third part and the fourth part, please rearrange the structure of the 2The authors present an interesting experimental study to investigate the seismic performance of typical high-speed rail (HSR) round-ended rectangular-shaped cross-section solid (RERSCSS) concrete piers by shaking table tests. Several piers design parameters were taking into account. Seismic performance of 9 pier specimens was assessed by analyzing the dynamic behavior from several points of view. The authors collected a large variety of measurement data and the experimental study was quite rich and complete. Nonetheless, the manuscript does not show any theoretical or numerical model that would have helped the comprehension of the results. The organization of the manuscript should be improved. Some parts of the text, as well as some tables and figures, are useless repetitions that do not add to the comprehension of the study. The overall manuscript should be a little more concise. Some figures do not match their captions and should be reorganized. Some revision of the English is needed. Some specific comments are in the following:[8] Page 7, line 119. Please, replace “…the actual results…” with “…the currently available results of…”[9] Page 7, lines 121-123. Here some papers by the earthquake researchers who found such results should be added to the references, for completeness.[10] Page 7, lines 125-130. Here the authors make reference to the risk of building collapse and related codes and practices in the US. Given that the authors are studying Chinese infrastructures, please, explicitly explain the reasons of such reference to the American context.[11] Page 8, lines 131-132. This sentence makes no sense. Please improve the English and reformulate this sentence. Do the authors mean that “Usually concrete piers are characterized by quite different cross-section sizes in the two horizontal directions, forming a wall pier”?[12] Page 8, lines 136-137. The authors state that the experimental research on the seismic performance of HSR circular end concrete piers is still insufficient. Please, provide some reasons why it is still insufficient.[13] Page 9, line 171. Please, explain what “the seismic fortification intensity of the 8-degree zone” is. International readers may not be familiar with the Chinese code…[14] Page 9, line 172-173. Please, replace with . Explicitly explain why the study focused on the three seismic intensity levels , , and (corresponding to , , and of shaking table test PGAs). If the reason is that the utilized shaking table cannot perform higher levels of PGA, please, state it explicitly for transparency. However, this part should be better moved to section ‘Input motion and seismic hazard levels’ for better manuscript organization and readability.[15] Page 9, line 174. Please, replace “Code” with “Chinese code”.[16] Table 1 should be better designed in order to be more readable. The second column is not easily comprehensible, values should be better spaced. Why 7-degree zone and 8-degree zone columns have double values? While 9-degree zone has only a single value?[17] Figure 3. This figure does not match its caption. Please check this figure![18] Table 2. According to this reviewer, the Table 2 is useless. All the design factors and variables here illustrated are better shown in Table 3. It seems that Table 2 is redundant and does not add to the comprehension of the study.[19] Page 13, lines 203-205. Notes to Table 2 should be added to Table 3. Please, check D values for pier models, they are probably in inverted order.[20] Figure 4. This figure does not match its caption. Please check this figure![21] Table 4. Similitude parameters related to material properties can be hardily achieved. Please, explicitly explain how you achieved, and checked, the scaled density values for reinforced concrete.[22] Page 16, line 240. Please, replace “Kn” with “kN”.[23] Page 17, line 254. Please, replace “represent” with “reproduce”.[24] Page 17, line 255. Please, replace “reappear” with “represent”.[25] Figure 7. This figure is quite simplistic and incomplete. Where are the sensors set at the bottom of piers? Please add in a new figure a few photos of sensors installation setup to let readers better understand the measurements that were carried out.[26] Page 18, lines 266-268. Explicitly explain the reason why you choose this specific earthquake for shaking table motions… it would make more sense to choose an earthquake recorded in China, given that the study focused on Chinese infrastructures…[27] Page 18, lines 269. Before “Three…” the authors should explicitly state that ST tests are one-directional and that the vertical component was neglected, adding the reasons of this choice. Moreover, they should explicitly state which horizontal direction (. N or E?) of the recorded earthquake they chose to be used for the ST tests, and why.[28] Figure 9. The order of graphs in this figure might be confusing. Please, consider reorder the graphs as a), c), d), b) clockwise. Moreover, in this reviewer’s opinion, Fourier spectrum would be more readable in linear scale of both axes (for frequencies use range 0-30 Hz or similar).[29] Section 3 ‘Test results and analyses’ and 4 ‘Experimental discussion’ should be reformulated. In the present form they are a bit confusing and repetitive.[30] Page 22, lines 320-322. Here the English is not good and the sentence in not comprehensible. Please, reformulate the sentence.[31] Page 22, lines 322-323. The crack pattern description is too short. Please, provide a wider description of cracks and add some descriptive photos.[32] Page 23, lines 332-343. Please, specify which specimen is considered here. This reviewer suggests moving Figure 17 and related text here. The overall section should be better reformulated.[33] Section ‘Acceleration responses’ and ‘Effect of axial load ratio on acceleration response’ should be reformulated. In the present form they are a bit confusing and repetitive. For example, acceleration growth rate and acceleration increase rate are the same? Please, use one nomenclature and define it the first time it appears in the text.[34] Figure 11. According to this reviewer, the photos embedded in the graphs are very bad and not readable. It is suggested to put them apart in a different figure with a proper caption describing what such photos are about. Furthermore, in graph b) at labels are in Chinese. Finally, in the caption x and y directions seem inverted…[35] Page 25, lines 353-358. These lines seem to describe the results shown in Figure 18 and not the ones in Figure 12…[36] Figure 12. For better readability, please, consider increasing the spacing between each bar and related acceleration value.[37] Page 27, lines 365-366. Check the statement “its top moved more in the cross-bridge direction than it did in its cross-bridge direction”...[38] Figure 14. Legend and related lines in the graphs are not clear…[39] Page 29, line 384. Please check section numbering …[40] Page 30, line 391. Delete “significant”.[41] Page 30, line 400. Define “hoop ratio”...[42] Page 31, line 409. Replace “.” with “Fig.”.[43] Page 33, lines 435-439. These lines seem to describe the results shown in Figure 12, if so make reference to Figure 12 …[44] Page 33, line 439. Delete “are the absolute weights of the two samples”. Possible typo.[45] Page 34, line 444. Replace “a bit” with “ a little”.[46] Figure 19. Graphs a) and b) are the same as in Figure 11. Useless repetition. Further comments are the same as in Figure 9…[47] Page 36, lines 484-487. Please, check repetitions of “cross-bridge direction”…[48] Page 37, line 496. Consider deleting “…seismic simulation…”. Useless repetition.[49] Page 37, line 499. Consider replacing “…substantial…” with ”… severe…”.[50] Page 37, line 503. Consider replacing “…visible …” with ”… significant…”.[51] Page 37, lines 507-508. Consider deleting “For this reason,…”.[52] Page 37, lines 509-510. According to this reviewer, the sentence “which means that the pier is less vulnerable to damage in the y-direction” is controversial, and should be eliminated or better justified. In fact, seismic vulnerability depends on the considered seismic input spectrum…[53] Page 38, lines 513-514. Consider replacing “… bigger than the displacement in the bridge's cross-sectional direction” with “… bigger in the cis-bridge direction than in the bridge's cross-sectional direction”.[54] Page 38, lines 514-517. The final sentence of 5 Conclusions is not comprehensible, please, reformulate it in a better English.

没听说过这个刊物，但是scientific report 是有的，是Nature Publishing Group旗下的OA期刊，费用挺高的。虽然影响因子很高，但是在国内声誉不好，口碑一般，有点敛财性质，但是今后走向不好说，有点像plots one的感觉，慎重。

人们对其的认知比较弱，没有PNAS强。

PNAS创刊100多周年,背后是美国国家科学院,在每年总引用量仅次于Nature,高于Science。而scientific report的水准现在基本和APS的PR（A-E）系列持平,算不上一线期刊,拍马也赶不上PNAS.唯一有可能冲击PNAS是的是。

Scientific Reports”是Nature Publishing Group (NPG)出版的一份开放存取的在线期刊，SCIE收录。2013年的IF为。

Nature和science在形式上有它们的相同性。比如科技论文基本以3种形式出现：(1)学术论文：《Nature》：Articale；《Science》：Research articale；(2)研究报道：《Nature》：Letter;《Science》：Report;(3)通讯：《Nature》:Correspondence；《Science》：Letter。研究文章较长，一般可在5—7页左右。研究报道一般为2—4页，通讯一般不超过1页。但两刊的一个重要差别是《Science》允许参考文献中在一个参考文献号下列出一个以上的文献，同时也允许在参考文献下加入简要注解说明等。这2点在《Nature》中都是不允许的。因此，在同一类文章形式中，《Science》提供了较大的空间。———摘自《Science与Nature杂志详解》

教育期刊期刊

教育期刊，是一种以服务教育、服务青少年健康成长为主要使命的教育专业传媒，富有鲜明的教育主导性、鲜明的地域特征和鲜明的行业依赖性，发挥着与其他报刊不同的特殊责任和传播功能。

1、教育研究：

《教育研究》杂志是教育部主管、中央教育科学研究所主办的全国性、综合性教育理论学术刊物，创刊于1979年。创刊30年来，《教育研究》杂志始终坚持正确的办刊方向。作为教育理论权威期刊，《教育研究》杂志始终关注教育理论的前沿问题，引领开展重大教育理论和实践问题的探讨。权威性高、覆盖面广、信息量大、实用性强，长期保持中文核心期刊排行榜教育总类第一等多项荣誉，重要的学术地位和广泛的学术影响，因而成为我国历次重大教育改革问题研究的主要平台。在教育界思想解放中发挥了先导作用。

2、教育与经济：

《教育与经济》杂志是由国家教育部主管，中国教育经济学研究会和华中师范大学联合主办的我国唯一的一份教育经济学专业学术性期刊。本刊及时反映国内外教育经济理论与现实问题研究的新成果、新观点和新动态。

多年来，在广大读者和作者的关怀下，这本刊物已经成为各级教育行政部门、各级各类学校和各位教育经济学者探讨教育经济理论，研究教育经济现实问题的必备刊物，同时也是国外教育经济学界了解我国教育经济学研究现状的唯一刊物，并被教育学术界誉为中国的教育经济学权威刊物。

3、全球教育展望：

《全球教育展望》由国家教育部主管、华东师范大学主办、教育部普通高等学校人文社会科学重点研究基地华东师范大学课程与教学研究所编辑,联合国教科文组织国际教育局、国际课程研究促进协会协办。

4、比较教育研究：

本刊主要从事中外教育的比较研究；在比较教育学科建设和当代国外教育思想与理论经研究方面卓有成就；对传播国外最新教育改基理念、方法作出了重要贡献。

5、中国教育学刊：

《中国教育学刊》是由中华人民共和国教育部主管、中国教育学会主办，面向基础教育的综合性学术刊物。创刊于1980年，1988年正式批准向国内外公开发行。

以下是一些国际上著名的教育类核心期刊：1. Educational Researcher2. American Educational Research Journal3. Review of Educational Research4. Journal of Educational Psychology5. Teachers College Record6. British Educational Research Journal7. Studies in Higher Education8. Harvard Educational Review9. Journal of Teacher Education10. Journal of Curriculum Studies这些期刊都是由世界各地知名的学者和专家组成的编辑委员会筛选、评审和发布高质量的研究论文和评论文章。它们涵盖了广泛的教育领域，

sci期刊ei期刊

ei期刊和sci期刊的区别是什么?Sci和ei都属于国际期刊的一种，但是二者之间存在一些区别，选择期刊投稿时需要注意这些区别。EI期刊刊物的审查周期短，SCI学术期刊的审查期长。难度要求不同，SCI期刊比EI期刊对语言的要求更高。EI期刊是美国工程信息公司出版的著名工程技术类综合检索工具，偏向于工程应用，主要收录工程技术领域的重要文献，包括期刊以及会议文献，另外也收录一些科技报告、专著等。EI期刊收录文献涉及的领域：机电工程、机械工程、船舶工程、制造技术等;矿业、材料工程、冶金、有色金属、金属材料、陶瓷、塑料及聚合物工程等;建筑工程、土木工程、结构工程、海洋工程、水利工程等。SCI期刊是美国情报研究所出版的世界著名的期刊文献检索工具，主要偏重理论性研究，通过引文检索功能可查找相关研究课题早期、当时和最近的学术文献，同时获取论文摘要。SCI期刊收录期刊的内容主要涉及数、理、化、农、林、医、生物等基础科学研究领域，选用刊物来源于40多个国家，50多种文字，其中主要的国家有英国、美国、德国、俄罗斯、荷兰、日本、法国、加拿大等，也收录部分中国(包括港澳台)刊物。

总体来说，SCI期刊的级别和水平要略高于EI期刊。SCI要求所做的研究更加规范，系统，完整，创新性更高。从发表角度来看，肯定是SCI要难一些了，SCI比较综合什么专业的论文都是可以投稿的，本身SCI投稿就比较难，审核周期也比较长，在一定程度上要比EI难发表。

EI期刊：是供查阅工程技术领域文献的综合性情报检索刊物，偏向于机械工程、机电工程、船舶工程、制造技术等。

SCI期刊：是由美国科学信息研究所创建的，收录文献的作者、题目、源期刊、摘要、关键词，不仅可以从文献引证的角度评估文章的学术价值，还可以迅速方便地组建研究课题的参考文献网络。SCI涵盖学科超过100个，主要涉及农业、生物及环境科学；工程技术及应用科学；医学与生命科学；物理及化学；行为科学等。

EI期刊论文属于第二级A类学术论文，学术论文共分为六级，所以说，EI期刊论文属于高级别的学术论文，仅次于第一级T类学术论文，与SCI、ISTP、SSCI以及A&HCI同属于第二级A类学术论文。

EI期刊论文在国内有着较高的认可度，虽说与sci相比要稍显逊色，但在国内教授副教授或者其他科研人员的职称晋升中也能发挥明显作用，EI期刊论文同样需要英文写作，发表难度虽说不及sci，但也是有一定难度的。

EI期刊论文还需要注意期刊论文和会议论文的区别，二者有一定区别，发表会议论文需要特别注意会议的选择，水分比较大的会议最好不要选择。

EI对稿件内容和学术水平要求较高的学科有：

机械工程、机电工程、船舶工程、制造技术等；

矿业、冶金、材料工程、金属材料、有色金属、陶瓷、塑料及聚合物工程等；

土木工程、建筑工程、结构工程、海洋工程、水利工程、测绘工程、地球科学等；

电气工程、电厂、电子工程、通讯、自动控制、计算机、计算技术、软件、航空航天技术等；

化学工程、石油化工、燃烧技术、生物技术、轻工纺织、食品工业；

工程管理。

期刊吗期刊论文

这期刊论文指的就是发表在各个杂志或者期刊上的论文。也就是说，一般发表在固定期刊上的论文都是属于期刊论文。例如例如，发表发表在教育杂志上的。

期刊论文就是发表在国家正规期刊的论文，有学术性与非学术性之分。包括教育教学累、经济管理类、医药医学类（含护理）、文学艺术类、科技工程类、社科综合等类别。

论点的提炼与概括，应准确、简明，完整，有条理，使人看后就能全面了解论文的意义、目的和工作内容。主要阐述自己的创造性工作及所取得的研究成果在本学术领域中的地位、作用和意义。同时，要严格区分自己取得的成果与导师及他人的科研工作成果。

审计论文题目应简明扼要地反映论文工作的主要内容，切忌笼统。由于别人要通过你论文题目中的关键词来检索你的论文，所以用语精确是非常重要的。论文题目应该是对研究对象的精确具体的描述，这种描述一般要在一定程度上体现研究结论。

我们的论文题目不仅应告诉读者这本论文研究了什么问题，更要告诉读者这个研究得出的结论。例如：“在事实与虚构之间：梅乐、卡彭特、沃尔夫的新闻观”就比“三个美国作家的新闻观研究”更专业更准确。

期刊是定期出版的刊物。期刊不是论文的一种。

期刊，定期出版的刊物。如周刊、旬刊、半月刊、月刊、季刊、半年刊、年刊等。由依法设立的期刊出版单位出版刊物。期刊出版单位出版期刊，必须经新闻出版总署批准，持有国内统一连续出版物号，领取《期刊出版许可证》。

分类：

从广义上来讲，期刊的分类，可以分为非正式期刊和正式期刊两种。非正式期刊是指通过行政部门审核领取“内部报刊准印证”作为行业内部交流的期刊（一般只限行业内交流不公开发行），但也是合法期刊的一种，一般正式期刊都经历过非正式期刊过程。

正式期刊是由国家新闻出版署与国家科委在商定的数额内审批，并编入“国内统一刊号”，办刊申请比较严格，要有一定的办刊实力，正式期刊有独立的办刊方针。

期刊论文正式出版的期刊上所刊载的学术论文。

写作期刊论文的目的是为了交流。因此，我们需要用简洁明了的语言表达论文的核心思想。写出的论文应该能够被人们理解，即使那些不了解相关专业的人也能理解论文想解决什么样的问题，使用的方法以及得出了什么结论。

补充以下应当注意的俩点：