物理与工程投稿

Scientific Reports 是 Natrure 旗下的综合性科学期刊，2012年第一次影响因子为2.9。文章强调“技术”上的先进，但“无需具有重大科研意义”，所以审稿要求低于Nature的其他刊物，投稿者一般都是投Nature系列刊物被拒稿后转投的，所以文章水平还是比较高的，但是由于是新刊物，且发表文章数量过多，因此造成影响因子偏低。

该期刊目前在国内物理界还是受到广泛认可的,但是如果唯影响因子论的老板或单位可能就看不上了.根据一般的投稿经验,期刊审稿时间在1个月左右,其审稿难度远高于同影响因子的期刊,功利的说,除非单位特别认可,否则不建议投稿.

Scientific Reports —出版业的一个新时代

Scientific Reports 是来自 Nature 杂志出版者的一个发表原始研究工作的刊物，在线出版，公开访问，内容涉及自然科学所有领域。

托管在 nature.com（该网站是由Springer Nature出版的80多种刊物的共同门户，每月全球有数百万科学家访问）上， 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。

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 tests.The 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 acquisition.The following points should be addressed before it can be considered for publication.The 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 3.1.[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 3.4 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 article.Reviewer 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 0.30g with 0.45g. Explicitly explain why the study focused on the three seismic intensity levels 0.15g, 0.20g, and 0.32g (corresponding to 0.45g, 0.60g, and 0.96g 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 2.7 ‘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 (i.e. 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 3.2 should be better reformulated.[33] Section 3.3 ‘Acceleration responses’ and 4.2 ‘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 0.60g 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 4.6…[40] Page 30, line 391. Delete “significant”.[41] Page 30, line 400. Define “hoop ratio”...[42] Page 31, line 409. Replace “Fig.Fig.” 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.

在物理这个方向上，除了《现代物理评论》（Reviews of Modern Physics），当属《物理评论快报》（Physical Review Letters）了。虽然它的影响因子一直在7.5左右，跟SCIENCE和跟NATURE差了好几倍，但是文章的深度，确实SCIENCE和跟NATURE无法相提并论的。

能中PRL是大多数搞物理的人的梦想，毕竟它是物理领域的标尺。找工作、评职称的时候，有了一篇甚至几篇PRL，事情就变得容易多了。什么叫做硬资本，那个叫做岗岗的硬。按老板的说法，发10篇一般的文章还不如发一篇PRL管用呢。

54年前，为了快速发表重要的物理研究成果，美国《物理评论》主编塞缪尔•古兹密特（Sam Goudsmit）做出一个决定：将《物理评论》中的一个栏目——《给编辑的快报》——分离出来，办一份新期刊，刊名就是《物理评论快报》（PRL）。1958年7月1日，第一期含有25篇论文的PRL正式出版，这也是世界物理学界第一份快报类期刊。到现在，它已经成为国际物理学界最权威的期刊之一。

LETTER型的期刊审稿都比较快，审稿周期一般是2个月。两个或者三个审稿人，两个审稿人意见有分歧的话，有时编辑会把意见返回给作者，有时会直接找第三个审稿人作为仲裁。由于审稿人都是领域内的专家，所以审稿意见通常是一针见血，刀刀见肉。看了之后想哭却又哭不出来，最后还得耐着性子改自己文章中的不足, 找专业英语润色公司如英论阁。当然也有不卖审稿人帐的，一个同事跟审稿人来回论战几回，每次comment都差不多跟文章一个长度，后来赢了这场论战。我想，这种论战对人应该很有帮助的，因为怎么看都觉得人家的水平是蹭蹭的往上涨的。

PRL很注重文章的原创性，一些重要但是原创性不高的文章会以观点不新颖拒稿之后推荐到PR系列期刊上。而且PRL讲究理论跟实验的结合，缺一边都容易给审稿人揪住辫子不放，所以导致现在审稿越来越严，命中越来越难。按照现在网站的说法，录用率在20%的样子。实际上，在2009年前，录用率还是30%的样子的。2009年的时候，PRL决定限制文章数量，只发表那些很重要的文章。在大部分期刊选择扩张的时候，PRL反其道而行，更加严格的筛选文章的质量，让人觉得更加值得敬佩，也进一步巩固了期刊的声誉。

物流工程与管理投稿

交通技术，直接找这些期刊的官网~咨询编辑如何投稿就可以了

论文写的好、有创新就可以发表

与我们合作的社科类期刊有（部分）：科技创新导报中国科技博览价值工程中国科技财富中国电子商务计算机光盘软件与应用科协论坛电脑知识与技术科技创业月刊北方环境科技资讯软件导刊信息与电脑工业设计中国水运东方企业文化消费导刊商品与质量今日湖北体育时空新闻天地工会博览《新西部》（理论版）北京农业旅游纵览河南科技新农村农家科技华人时刊吉林农业现代园艺湖南农机物流工程与管理新闻传播体育博览等等。发表论文就找华中期刊采编中心。

物流工程与管理刊物

《物流工程与管理》这些不是核心期刊，但是也是国家级期刊，主办单位：全国商品养护科技情报中心站主办，主管单位：全国商品养护科技情报中心站主管，是正规期刊，期刊质量算是不错。

重庆交通大学物流工程与管理报录比要求考生提供详细的答案。首先，考生需要清楚地表达自己对物流工程与管理的理解，并且能够在该领域内提出自己的想法和见解。其次，考生应该提供一些物流工程与管理领域相关的实例，以说明自己对这一领域的了解，比如提供一些具体的物流解决方案，以及实施这些解决方案的技术和管理方法。最后，考生应该提供一些物流工程与管理的发展趋势，讨论未来物流管理的趋势，以及物流管理在未来发展中所面临的挑战。

这本刊是国家级普刊，如果考虑在这本刊物上发布文章可以联系论文一点通小编

重庆交通大学的物流工程与管理专业的报录比一般在20-30之间，具体数值会取决于当年招生的考生数量。不同的届次可能有不同的报录比，具体数值可以从学校官网查询。此专业一般会招收有物流以及管理背景的优秀学生，其考评分数也会比其他专业的考生要求要高一些。物流工程与管理本专业的学生可以在企业、政府机关和其它有关机构中从事物流管理、供应链管理、物流信息管理、物流营销等方面的工作。

物流工程与管理审稿

专硕。根据查询清华大学官网显示，深圳研究院物流工程与管理是专硕，研究方向是非常重要的。清华大学，简称“清华”，位于北京市海淀区，是中华人民共和国教育部直属的全国重点大学。

【答案】 (1)“在发明造纸术利印刷术之后，就出现了最早的出版活动”应改为“出版活动在发明造纸术和印刷术之前就已有”。 (2)“因此在··宋代，人们就开始使用‘出版’这个词”应改为“在宋代人们并未使用‘出版’这个词”。 (3)“具有一定社会知名度的企业或单位”应改为“具有一定资质的企业或单位”。 (4)“所有形式的作品都能作为出版活动的前提”应改为“某些形式的作品不可能作为出版活动的前提”。 (5)“三个独立的阶段”应改为“三个相互依存的阶段”。 (6)“创作性”应改为“创造性”。 (7)“独特性”应改为“加工性”。 (8)“物质产品生产··在整个出版活动中处于中心环节”应改为“在整个出版活动中处于中心环节的应是以编辑工作为主的精神产品生产，不是物质产品生产”， (9)“而新型的电子出版物··批量生产复本的过程与出版物传播过程交融在一起”应改为“电子出版物有独立的生产复本过程，不与传播过程交融在一起”。 (10)“发行单位”应改为“出版单位”。 (11)“将经济效益放在首位”应改为“将社会效益放在首位”。 (12)“出版物发行··统一”应改为“出版物发行应该表现为信息流、商流、物流和资金流的统一”。 (13)“数字出版产品包括··博客和微博”中，博客和微博不属于数字出版产品，宜删除“博客和微博”。

物流工程与管理征稿

《物流工程与管理》这些虽然不是核心期刊，但是也是国家级期刊，主办单位：全国商品养护科技情报中心站主办，主管单位：全国商品养护科技情报中心站主管，是正规期刊，期刊质量算是不错的，中国月期刊网正在征稿

这本杂志还可以，应该可以用作市厅级课题结项论文发表的期刊。平时可以算省级期刊，省级期刊的收费基本都这样。