Contemporary Problems of Ecology SCIE

中文简介

《当代生态学问题》是一本多学科期刊，主要出版生态学的理论和方法问题、生态学的区域方面、区域生态灾害、生态系统的结构和功能、生态系统的人为改造等方面的原创著作。介绍了现代生态学的所有基本方面，包括生物与其环境之间最复杂的相互作用。一些期刊专门讨论全球生物多样性的变化在不同层次的组织(人口、物种、生态系统)自然保护的原则和方法。同行评审《当代生态学问题》是一本同行评议期刊。我们使用单一的盲同行评审格式。我们的审稿人团队包括91名审稿人，包括内部审稿人和外部审稿人(88%)。2017年从提交到首次评审的平均周期为15天，从首次评审到验收的平均周期为30-40天。2017年投稿退稿率为76%。接受发表的文章由总编作出最后决定。被邀请的审稿人因利益冲突，认为不符合审稿条件或者不能审稿的，应当及时通知审稿人，并予以拒绝。审稿人应以一种合理合理的方式清晰地阐述自己的观点，这样作者才能利用审稿人的观点来完善稿件。必须避免对作者的个人批评。评论者应该显示发表的一篇评论(我)任何相关的工作没有被引用的作者,(2)任何已报道在以前的出版物和没有适当的参考或引用,(2)任何实质性相似或重叠与其他手稿(发表或未发表)的个人知识。

投稿网址：https://www.springer.com/life+sciences/ecology/journal/12259

英文简介

Contemporary Problems of Ecology is a multidisciplinary periodical that publishes original works on the following subjects: theoretical and methodical issues of ecology, regional aspects of ecology, regional ecological disasters, structure and functioning of ecosystems, anthropogenic transformation of ecosystems. All basic aspects of modern ecology, including the most complicated interactions between living organisms and their environment, are presented. Some of the journal issues are dedicated to global changes in biological diversity at various levels of organization (populations, species, ecosystems) principles and methods of nature conservation.PEER REVIEWContemporary Problems of Ecology is a peer reviewed journal. We use a single blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes 91 reviewers, both internal and external (88%). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 15 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 30-40 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 76%. The final decision on the acceptance of an article for publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief.Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified or unable to review the manuscript due to the conflict of interests should promptly notify the editors and decline the invitation. Reviewers should formulate their statements clearly in a sound and reasoned way so that authors can use reviewer’s arguments to improve the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors must be avoided. Reviewers should indicate in a review (i) any relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors, (ii) anything that has been reported in previous publications and not given appropriate reference or citation, (ii) any substantial similarity or overlap with any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.