elsevier期刊怎么不能投稿

1、审稿人出差，没有审稿，所以没有回复。2、文章没有通过审核，所以审稿人直接没有回复还有比如审稿人没有收到稿件等其它的原因。以上就是elsevier投稿推荐审稿人没反应的原因。

elsevier投稿时，目前不支持Word 00即后面的版本的公式。你可以使用Word 00，并支持加载MathType。另外，elsevier允许第一次投稿时，使用PDF版本，但修改版本需要使用*.doc式。另，对于Word00公式的问题，elsevier没有表示会兼容Word00。

Elsevier上的投稿绝大部分期刊不会给每个人都发邮件的，不像RSC的期刊，所以楼主不要担心。最好添真实的邮箱，或者楼主也可以以他们的名义注册真实的邮箱，系统好像只给通讯作者发邮件，所以其实你也不必担心什么。不要乱写。切记:通讯作者的邮箱地址不可乱填。 Elsevier投稿状态如下，供参考：1. Submitted to Journal 刚提交的状态2. Manuscript received by Editorial Office 就是你的文章到了编辑手里了，证明投稿成功3. With editor如果在投稿的时候没有要求选择编辑，就先到主编那，主编会分派给别的编辑。这当中就会有另两个状态：3.1. Awaiting Editor Assignment指派责任编辑 Editor assigned是把你的文章分给一个编辑处理了。3.2. Editor Declined Invitation 也可能编辑会拒绝邀请，这就需要重新指定编辑3.3. technical check in progress 检查你的文章符不符合期刊投稿要求4.编辑接手处理后也会有2种状态4.1. Decision Letter Being Prepared 就是编辑没找审稿人就自己决定了，那根据一般经验，对学生来说估计会挂了 1）英文太差，编辑让修改。 2）内容太差，要拒了。除非大牛们直接被接收。4.2. Reviewer(s) invited 找到审稿人了，就开始审稿5. Under review这应该是一个漫长的等待。当然前面各步骤也可能很慢的，要看编辑的处理情况。如果被邀请审稿人不想审，就会decline，编辑会重新邀请别的审稿人。6. Required Reviews Completed审稿人的意见已上传，审稿结束，等待编辑决定7. uating Recommendation评估审稿人的意见，随后你将收到编辑给你的decision8. Minor revision/Major revision这个时候可以稍微庆祝一下了，问题不大了，因为有修改就有可能。具体怎么改就不多说了，谦虚谨慎是不可少的。9. Revision Submitted to Journal又开始了一个循环。

我也是投的elsevier，一个多月后才变成under review，说是今天给反馈结果，唉，好紧张

elsevier期刊怎么投稿

1.Knowledge Services 限定在字段title\abstract\keywords 检索，比仅仅限制在all fields 精确度高2.利用精确检索，将检索词用引号引起来，“Knowledge Services ”3.当然你也可以用系统规定的位置算符W/n (表示两个词之间相隔最多n个词，两个词的次序可以颠倒）和PRE/n(表示两个词相隔最多n个词，两个词次序不能颠倒），来限制检索结果中两个词之间的位置关系。

这个一般不是强制性的，如果期刊要求的话，可以从论文中选取一张最有代表性的最能说明论文核心问题的完整图片（也可以没有在文章中用过的概略图），然后配相应的文字摘要，让浏览目录的人大概了解文章的主要内容

你好，大部分期刊的投稿状态如下，供参考，时间就要看各个期刊了，不同的期刊千差万别。1. Submitted to Journal 刚提交的状态2. Manuscript received by Editorial Office 就是你的文章到了编辑手里了，证明投稿成功3. With editor如果在投稿的时候没有要求选择编辑，就先到主编那，主编会分派给别的编辑。这当中就会有另两个状态：3.1. Awaiting Editor Assignment指派责任编辑 Editor assigned是把你的文章分给一个编辑处理了。3.2. Editor Declined Invitation 也可能编辑会拒绝邀请，这就需要重新指定编辑3.3. technical check in progress 检查你的文章符不符合期刊投稿要求4.编辑接手处理后也会有2种状态4.1. Decision Letter Being Prepared 就是编辑没找审稿人就自己决定了，那根据一般经验，对学生来说估计会挂了 1）英文太差，编辑让修改。 2）内容太差，要拒了。除非大牛们直接被接收。4.2. Reviewer(s) invited 找到审稿人了，就开始审稿5. Under review这应该是一个漫长的等待。当然前面各步骤也可能很慢的，要看编辑的处理情况。如果被邀请审稿人不想审，就会decline，编辑会重新邀请别的审稿人。6. Required Reviews Completed审稿人的意见已上传，审稿结束，等待编辑决定7. uating Recommendation评估审稿人的意见，随后你将收到编辑给你的decision8. Minor revision/Major revision这个时候可以稍微庆祝一下了，问题不大了，因为有修改就有可能。具体怎么改就不多说了，谦虚谨慎是不可少的。9. Revision Submitted to Journal又开始了一个循环。10. Accepted 恭喜了11. Transfer copyright form 签版权协议12. uncorrected proof 等待你校对样稿13. In Press, Corrected Proof 文章在印刷中，且该清样已经过作者校对14. Manuscript Sent to Production 排版15 in production 出版中

elsevier不同期刊投稿历史

会有记录。但是对后续投稿没有影响。1、内容与杂志的定位与范围不符。2、论述不完整。3、研究方法、数据分析有错误。4、数据不够完善。5、结论没有说服力

pier期刊怎么不能投稿

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Nat.Comm。

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5.078。

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》

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.

Progress In Electromagnetics Research电磁研究进展电磁学相关领域的权威期刊。

只对电力系统方向比较熟悉，中文期刊：电机工程学报，电网技术，电力系统自动化是国内认可度较高的三个，其中电机工程学报为认可对最高。英文期刊：北美地区 IEEE trans. on power system, IEEE trans. on smart grid, IEEE trans. on sustainable energy, IEEE trans. on power delivery, 前三个认可度高，其中 power system为最好。 power delivery 与这三个比较IF和认可度都略逊一筹。欧洲 IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution，Electric Power Systems Research，International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems，Energy 这几个里面 energy IF 较高但是业内认可度或者说关注度并不高。相对来说前三个要有更高的认可度。个人认为在以上所有期刊中 IEEE trans. on power system 是最顶级 IEEE trans. on smart grid, IEEE trans. on sustainable energy 为第二梯队剩下英文期刊可以归为第三梯队。中文期刊没有入选SCI。电机工程学报有一个英文版CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems 和最近建刊的 Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy 是中国组办的两个英文期刊。不是很清楚有没有进入SCI。

elsevier期刊投稿

朋友你好，直接往要投的报刊、网站或者其他媒体的电子邮箱投稿即可。根据我多年从事文字工作的经验，我认为：如果投稿更有针对性，命中率会更高一些。这就关系到，你是哪里的？干什么的？写的稿件是什么体裁？什么内容？如果说投稿的话，最好投当地的报刊、网络或者是你从事的职业报刊发表，要投哪个媒体首先要研究哪个媒体，看它需要什么内容、什么体裁、什么格式的稿件，“对症下药”，这样会更轻松一些、方便一些，命中率会更高一些。如果你能够告诉我你的具体情况（干什么工作，哪里的，写的小说的大致内容等），我可以给你一些建议。我1993年开始在部队时开始发表各类文章，包括：报告文学、新闻、诗歌、散文、小说、评论等体裁的，到目前，先后在《人民日报》《法制日报》《农民日报》《中国文化报》《法制文萃》《半月谈》《解放军报》《中国国防报》《中国绿色时报》《中国日报》《中国教育报》《人民公安报》《中国交通报》《中国安全生产报》《中国转业军官》《中国人事》《道路交通管理》等报刊发表的大约5000篇左右吧，有40多篇获奖。另外：投稿时，第一要有信心，第二要投对报刊媒体，这两点非常重要。祝你成功！