IAEJ期刊投稿时间

王应宽Wang Yingkuan2011-07-23Beijing, China因为同时在运作3本国际英文刊（IJABE, IAEJ, CIGR Journal），论文同行评审的专家来自世界各地。每次收到的评审意见千差万别，而且不同国家或地区的专家的评审意见呈现一定的规律性，随即不由得做些比较。比较得出的基本结论是：欧美国家专家的评审意见详尽具有更大参考价值，台湾地区的同行评审专家次之，大陆专家的评审意见最为简省。文后附上几篇评审意见（所列大陆专家评审意见还是相对较好的），看看便知，一目了然。我曾与编辑同行讨论关于国内专家审稿的问题。共同的见解是，一线一流的专家基本不审稿。若应邀审稿，要么直接拒审，要么敷衍几句了事；比较认真的专家大都让其所指导的研究生代为评审论文。不论让谁审，最后的评审意见与国外专家的评审相比总不令人满意，存在较大的差距。国外专家评审论文大都是义务劳动，没有任何报酬。但专家们认为自己作为科研人员是科学共同体中的一分子，有义务担任同行专家为他人研究成果的学术质量把关。自己为别人的论文评审把关付出了智慧和劳动，别人也会为自己的研究和论文评审把关，也会付出相应的劳动。专家之间相互协作，相互帮助，虽然没有评审报酬，但大家都觉得平等。而且，国外的专家大都言行一致，故能认真地做好每一篇文章的评审工作。有的评审意见详尽的令人赞叹、钦佩和感动。因此，大家看到他们的评审意见都非常详尽而具有参考价值。而国内的专家评审论文为何大都仓促应付，三言两语，或言之无物，或毫无参考价值？主要原因是一线一流的专家都太“忙”，以至忙得都没时间做学术了。据我从事学术期刊工作十多年的经历，不论评审中文文章还是英文文章，国内专家评审意见普遍简单，评审的质量不高，不但看不出有改观的迹象，还有进一步恶化的趋势。文章中存在的很多的问题，专家审后没有看出来或没有指出来。如果直接发表，错误或疏漏太多影响论文的质量和期刊的声誉。在外审专家靠不住时，就要依靠内审做些完善和提高。如果外审专家把不好关，编辑部又无能力通过内审把关，发表出来的论文的质量也就可想而知了。是否国内专家不擅长评审论文呢？非也。据了解，许多国内专家被国外知名期刊邀请审稿时，他们非常积极认真地评审论文，并在规定时间返回颇有水准的评审意见。据说他们也能做得与欧美国际同行专家一样好。可见，国内专家评不好国内期刊论文不是水平问题，而是态度问题，“时间”问题，或者有其他方面的原因。同行评审是学术期刊论文质量把关的重要途径。如果大家都不在乎，把严肃认真的“盲审”变成“瞎审”，学术危矣！国内期刊请国内专家评审论文大都支付审稿费的。当然，限于各期刊的经济困难，审稿费报酬普遍都不高。因此，同行专家大都不很在乎那点可怜的审稿费。如果评审不好文章会影响专家的声誉和公信度。国内特别是大陆的专家既不在乎钱，也不在乎自己的声誉，不知道他们究竟在乎啥？中国是雷锋诞生的国度，按理说，当志愿者做公益应该很有基础。但在学术圈，就拿国内外同行专家无私奉献评审论文作比较，中国的同行专家做的还很不够，需要好好向国际同行学习。附：CIGR Journal栏目主编加拿大专家对一篇退稿文章的评审意见June 27, 2011Dear Prof. H L L:Re: CIGR Manuscript 1911 EFFECTS OF TRACTOR INFLATION PRESSURE AND TRAFFIC ON SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIESAs CIGR section editor, I have conducted a preliminary review of the above manuscript.The manuscript addresses a significant engineering problem in agricultural crop production, and as such, the subject matter is of interest to CIGR.However, the manuscript is deficient in several scientific areas.The decision is to decline the manuscript without peer review.My preliminary review is attached to the end of this email.Please note that the preliminary review is by no means a comprehensive review.The manuscript is released, and you are free to submit it for publication in another journal.Thank you for considering CIGR for publication of your work and I wish you success in getting your work published.SincerelyP.Eng., Ph.D.,CIGR Section III editor,Research Scientist, Agricultural Engineering,Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,Section Editor ReviewTitle: EFFECTS OF TRACTOR INFLATION PRESSURE AND TRAFFIC ON SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIESCIGR # 1911Authors:H L L et al.June 27, 2011General:The manuscript addresses soil compaction by multiple passes with agricultural machinery which is a timely topic and of importance to sustainable agricultural production.There are numerous grammatical errors although the meaning is generally clear.It is strongly recommended that the authors seek the assistance of someone well versed in English to help with the grammar.The manuscript is not acceptable in its present form.It needs a lot of work.The biggest problem with the manuscript is that key pieces of information are not given, and that the data analysis is not complete.Some of the major deficiencies are listed below although this is by no means an exhaustive list.Soil characteristics.It is well known that soil characteristics have a huge influence on soil compaction.The only description given is that the soil was a sandy loam.Things like soil series, percent sand, silt and clay, soil organic matter all influence compaction and need to be provided.Tractor specifications: Total tractor weight, tractor axle (or wheel) weights, are critical pieces of information required for compaction studies, but they are not given.Tire pressure was given, but no information was given on whether these pressures were the same for front and rear tires.Often, tractor manufacturers recommend different pressures for front and rear tires, particularly on tractors with different sizes of front and rear tires.Slip was measured, but there was no mention made of whether the tractor was free wheeling (no implement draft) or whether it was pulling a load.The drawbar load on a tractor has a huge effect on wheel slip, and must be specified.It was mentioned that a 4WD tractor was used, and different tire sizes were given for front and rear tires which implies that it was a front wheel assist.It needs to be specified whether or not the front wheel drive was engaged.Results: A randomized complete block statistical design with three replicates was specified.However, the results are given in a series of tables with simple means with no statistical analysis. The results need to be subjected to appropriate statistical analysis, i.e. ANOVA or multiple regression analysis, and appropriate post hoc tests applied to determine which means are statistically different from each other.The experimental design employed lends itself to standard statistical analysis of the results.Graphs should be used when appropriate to help illustrate the data and the trends.Table 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 and elsewhere. Cone index has wrong units.Cone index is normally given in MPa or kPa.Also, the values for cone index are much lower than normally expected.Section 2.3It is not necessary to list all of the equipment used such as oven, air compressor, etc.All you need to say is that samples were oven dried at 105�0�2 C for soil moisture determinations.Things like air compressor and pressure gauge are every day shop equipment, are understood to be necessary for any type of experiment where inflation pressures are changed.However, things like the penetrometer, and shear vane meter should be specified.These are specialized pieces of equipment and their performance can affect the results.Section 2.5.Need to provide information on which soil cone penetrometer you used.Also, how many penetrometer measurements per plot per pass?3)In Figure 4, the text “USB Connection” was overlapped by the line.4)In Figure 4, the line with the “Information Collection” is missing an arrow.5)In Figure 7, the text “field identifying number” was covered by the line.6)In Figure 8, some texts are placed out of the frames.7)Please use consistent fonts in figures throughout the article.Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor/Editor-in-chiefI recommend the authors should use consistent fonts throughout the article. The paper cannot be accepted in its present form.中国大陆专家1评审论文意见Section III: CommentsThis section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need. General Comments:This paper assess the O2 consumption rate and the CO2 evolution rate in tomato pomace treated with Pleurotus ostreatus without and with Mn to determine if peak colonization rate (for heightened delignification) was delayed by amendment. Generally speaking, the author’s work is useful and suggestive. The author gives a brief introduction to the related work and compares his ideas to others. The theoretical analysis of this article is strong.In all, this manuscript has good novelty and strong technical strength, I’m looking forward the results of further investigations on this topic.Specific comments:In Table 1, notes are not enough in this manuscript. In the Results and Discussion, results have been detailed explained, but some theoretical analysis of the experimental data are not sufficient.Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division EditorI hope the paper will be published to guide more researchers.Reviewers’ information (Blind to Authors)中国大陆专家2评审论文意见(相对而言属于国内专家评审较为认真仔细的了)Section III: CommentsThis section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need. General Comments:Variable Spray will play an important role in saving resources, protecting environment, raising quality of agricultural product. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate PWM-based continuous variable spray in terms of spray distribution pattern, spray droplet size, and spray angle for flat-fan, hollow-cone and solid-cone nozzles. The test design, results, analysis and conclusion are correct. After re-review, this paper may be published, I think.Specific comments:(1)I have read a paper named “Variable rate Continuous Spray Equipment Based on PWM Technology and Its Spray Characteristics”, which was published in Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2008, 39 (6): 77-80 (in Chinese)”(see the attachment), I think that is a previous study work of the authors. If that is correct, I suggest the author adding that paper in the references of this paper. And then, the contents which have been described in the previous paper can be deleted from this paper.(2)In the abstract “The sensitivities of the spray angles to flow-rate are 0.8254o/%、0.6681o/%、0.5761o/% respectively for flat-fan, the hollow-cone and the solid-cone nozzles”. In English, without the symbol “、”.(3)The numerical data in the conclusion are not the same as those in the abstract”.Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division EditorReviewers’ information (Blind to Authors)中国大陆专家3评审论文意见Section III: CommentsThis section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need. General Comments:This paper is more important, but it still needs major revision requiring re-review.Specific comments:Revision suggestions of this paper: 1. The study results and conclusions should be clarified in abstract.2. It should be described clearly about the data and size of NACA0015 airfoil which was selected in the numerical simulation in section 2.1.3. It should be described clearly about the specific quantitative conditions of icing in section 3.4. This paper is required re-review after revision.Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor

投稿时间晚于期刊时间

杂志官网给出的审稿时间比实际的时间少一半是稿件内容导致。主要是根据期刊级别和论文质量决定的，期刊分为省级、国家级、核心级，核心级的审稿时间最长，根据质量审核的时间就有所不同。

超过时间就不接受投稿了。CCF给的列表中的期刊，A类审稿时间比较快（三个月左右给结果），大部分都要半年，所以要提前准备好。中国计算机学会（CCF）成立于1962年，全国一级学会，独立社团法人，中国科学技术协会成员。CCF是中国计算机及相关领域的学术团体，宗旨是为本领域专业人士的学术和职业发展提供服务，推动学术进步和技术成果的应用，进行学术评价，引领学术方向，促进技术和产业应用一线的交流和互动，对在学术和技术方面有突出成就的个人、企业和单位给予认可和表彰。

对于学术期刊而言投稿者最晚需要在6月进行投稿。根据查询相关公开信息显示，学术期刊，是一种经过同行评审的期刊，发表在学术期刊上的文章通常涉及特定的学科。学术期刊展示了研究领域的成果，并起到了公示的作用，其内容主要以原创研究、综述文章、书评等形式的文章为主。

期刊投稿时间和见刊时间

论文投稿到见刊一般3个月之内就可以见刊了，有的期刊可能会更快。但是如果选择的是核心期刊话，从投稿到见刊大概需要半年的时间，成功见刊建议如下：

1、语言通俗易懂，条理清晰。

无需多言，所有期刊要求必须具有可读性，任何语言不通的论文势必在语言通顺之后才会进入审理状态。一篇文章的条理如果不清晰会使审稿人感动困惑，这样就浪费了一个创新思路。

2、目的性明确的研究。

科研工作者在撰写论文时觉得没有目的性，这体现在一开始的研究就是随大流，或者导师让做的这个课题。我们想说的是，课题的大方向是导师定的，但是研究者可以选择小的分值，往细节处渗透。

就好比导师的课题是胰岛素抵抗相关，而与胰岛素抵抗相关的信号通路有多个，选择哪个signal pathway从事研究将由研究者来定。如果是随意选择，势必造成无效研究。准确的做法是在大量阅读文献的基础上，选择感兴趣的一点进行研究，逐层推进。

3、突出意义。

突出意义并不是大篇幅、漫无目的地陈述。关键是落实到实处。比如既往研究虽对胰岛素抵抗的信号通路有所介绍，但是结果存在一定争议。其原因主要是样本量或选择人群的原因。本研究与既往研究相比，加大了样本量，所得研究与既往研究相同或相反，都可以撰写一篇文章。

不同的期刊周期不同，普刊，审核1-2个月，发表6-10个月，加上投稿审核周期，也就是从投稿到发表7-12个月左右。本科学报，核心期刊，审核2-4个月，发表10-14个月，从投稿到发表12-16个月

论文投稿步骤：

评职称、评奖学金、毕业，都要写论文。辛苦写的论文怎么投才更有可能出版呢。今天小编手把手教小白怎么投稿。方法/步骤1首先，要了解专业或相关的杂志都有哪些。哪些是核心，哪些是普通的，内容是否与你写的方向符合，适合审稿要多久，稿费要多少等都要了解清楚.

首先想发表一篇期刊论文就一定要具备一定的专业认知，这里包括的是“了解整体流程、效率最大化、不走弯路”。

如果你是个新手小白的话，就和我一起往下慢慢看吧~

2022最新发表期刊论文详细流程:

期刊投稿时间间隔

4-6个月。

就是你投稿后到审稿通过这段时间。

期刊的稿件录用流程大体为：

作者将文章作为附件通过电子邮件投稿；

编辑对作者的文章进行初审并做出处理意见；

通过作者提供的电子邮件地址回复作者，如作者的文章被杂志社采用则同时发送电子版《用稿通知书》；如文章未被采用，也同样通知作者；

收到《用稿通知书》的作者须按照《用稿通知书》上的要求办理汇款及其他相关手续；

杂志社收到汇款后，会发送“收款确认函”给作者，并通知作者文章发表的具体时间及期数；

根据作者的要求，提供书面的《用稿通知书》、收据等证明资料；

杂志社对作者的文章进行编辑、加工及印刷；

杂志出版后，杂志社通过邮寄寄赠当期杂志给作者。

具体时间周期因期刊不同会有差别，半年到一年都属于正常现象。

核心期刊是期刊中学术水平较高的刊物，是进行刊物评价而非具体学术评价的工具。相当一批教学科研单位申请高级职称、取得博士论文答辩资格、申报科研项目、科研机构或高等院校学术水平评估等，都需要在核心期刊上发表一篇或若干篇论文。

就是你投稿后到审稿通过这段时间。一般周刊、旬刊、月刊、双月刊、季刊、半年刊投稿时间是逐渐递增的，周期越长，需要的投稿时间越长。

投稿期刊时间