地震研究期刊投稿
这个。。还不清楚 不过你可以发其他的杂志刊物 你们必须指定发《大地测量与地球动力学》吗？如果不是要求你就发个其他的普刊就行了
天文学类核心期刊: 天文学报 天文学进展测绘学类核心期刊: 测绘学报 武汉大学学报. 信息科学版 测绘科学 测绘通报 大地测量与地球动力学 遥感学报 测绘科学技术学报 地球信息科学（改名为：地球信息科学学报）地球物理学类核心期刊: 地球物理学报 地震学报 地震地质 地震工程与工程振动 地震 中国地震 地震研究 地球物理学进展 西北地震学报 水文地理学类核心期刊: 地理学报 地理研究 地理科学 人文地理 地理科学进展
常见的：地球物理学报 、地球物理学进展 、 物探与化探、 煤田地质与勘探 、 中国地震等地震类 、石油物探、一些学报的自然科学版（石油大学-吉林大学-中国矿大等等较多） 、物探化探计算技术物探化探计算技术 最容易发表 ， 物探与化探、 煤田地质与勘探次之。 个人意见，仅供参考。
地震研究期刊投稿格式
求一篇英语4000字原作? 文献?在很多大学发表一篇英语期刊奖金上万元。
期刊名字 Earthquake Engineering and Engineering VibrationEARTHQ ENG ENG VIB 期刊ISSN 1671-3664 2014-2015最新影响因子 0.729 期刊官方网站 springerlink.com/content/1671-3664/ 期刊投稿网址 mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/eeev 通讯方式 SPRINGER, 233 SPRING ST, NEW YORK, USA, NY, 10013 涉及的研究方向 工程技术-工程：地质 出版国家 PEOPLES R CHINA 出版周期 Quarterly
这个。。还不清楚 不过你可以发其他的杂志刊物 你们必须指定发《大地测量与地球动力学》吗？如果不是要求你就发个其他的普刊就行了
地震研究期刊投稿流程
期刊投稿流程如下：拟题、筹谋、写作、投稿、修改、刊发。
拟题——学会将议题转换，把研究议题转向发表议题；
筹谋——确定自己的目标期刊，对期刊进行分析；
写作——定制性写作，以发表为导向，平时多读目标期刊；
投稿——投稿自查，评估自己的论文价值是否在发表平均水平上，抓住开会机会增加发表概率，客观分析拒稿原因；
修改——正确理解编辑部的意见，从编辑部和批评者的角度看文章，消灭漏洞，根据意见对症下药；
刊发——可适当咨询编辑刊发情况。
第一步：投稿。这是论文发表人员选择好投稿期刊之后，将自己的论文稿件通过邮箱、在线投稿窗口、QQ或者微信即时通讯软件这三大方式发送给编辑。第二步：审核即审稿。投稿之后，编辑会按照投稿顺序对论文进行审稿，有的期刊杂志收取审稿费，如果您的论文需要加急发表，请在投稿时标注清楚，可能会产生加急费用。审稿环节是整个论文发表过程中耗时最长的，影响了论文发表周期的长短，关于论文发表时间影响因素可以阅读《是什么影响论文发表时间长短》了解。这里需要注意的是论文审稿可能会反复进行。第三步：审稿结果。主要介绍通过审稿被录用的论文。通过杂志社论文三审的论文，杂志社会下发录用通知书，并注明预安排在某年某期发表，之所以是预安排，是因为还没交纳版面费。关于论文三审可以阅读《什么时候论文需要三审》，了解一些审稿知识。第四部：交费。这里的交费主要是版面费，交纳之后，论文才会正式进入安排刊期出版流程。第五步：安排发表。版面费到位之后，即可安排刊期，并按照日期出版见刊。少部分论文发表可能会延期，原因很多，例如：有人安排加急。第六步：寄送样刊。论文见刊之后，会给作者寄送一本样刊，作为用途上交的材料。到此整个的论文发表流程结束。论文发表过程中，可能会有一些特殊情况发生，所以具体情况可能需要作者和编辑公司相互沟通好，广州易出刊就是一家不错的选择。
地震研究期刊投稿经验
刊名： 大地测量与地球动力学 Journal of Geodesy and Geodynamics主办： 国家地震局地震研究所周期： 双月出版地：湖北省武汉市语种： 中文;开本： 大16开ISSN： 1671-5942CN： 42-1655/P邮发代号： 38-194历史沿革：现用刊名：大地测量与地球动力学曾用刊名：地壳形变与地震创刊时间：1981该刊被以下数据库收录：CSCD 中国科学引文数据库来源期刊（2013-2014年度）（含扩展版）核心期刊：中文核心期刊(2011)中文核心期刊(2008)中文核心期刊(2004)中文核心期刊(1992)
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.
这个。。还不清楚 不过你可以发其他的杂志刊物 你们必须指定发《大地测量与地球动力学》吗？如果不是要求你就发个其他的普刊就行了
是要发这类的期刊吗？
地震研究期刊投稿要求
防灾减灾救灾的刊普有《防灾减灾工程学报》，《震灾防御技术》，《地震地质》。《防灾减灾工程学报》刊期：双月刊。是由江苏省地震局主管，中国灾害防御协会主办的核心期刊。《震灾防御技术》刊期：季刊。是由中国地震局主管，中国地震灾害防御中心主办的核心期刊。《地震地质》刊期：双月刊。是由中国地震局主管，中国地震局地质研究所主办的核心期刊。
查资料，这方面的期刊主要有：1《地震》中文核心期刊， 科技核心核心期刊中国地震局地震预测研究所、中国地震学会地震预报专业委员会等主佃。2《地震工程与工程振动》中文核心期刊 科技核心中国力学学会、中国地震局工程力学研究所主办。3《地震学报》中国地震学会主办的地震科学综合性学术刊物。4《防灾减灾学报》
这个。。还不清楚 不过你可以发其他的杂志刊物 你们必须指定发《大地测量与地球动力学》吗？如果不是要求你就发个其他的普刊就行了