月期刊平台服务过的文章录用时间为1-3个月，依据20年经验，经月期刊专家预审通过后的文章，投稿通过率100%以上！
《等离子体物理报告》是一份专门研究等离子体物理的同行评议期刊。该杂志涵盖了以下主题:高温等离子体物理与基于磁约束和惯性约束的受控核聚变问题有关;宇宙等离子体物理，包括磁层等离子体、太阳等离子体和恒星等离子体等;气体放电等离子体和等离子体产生的激光和粒子束。该杂志还发表了有关等离子体电子学、等离子体辐射产生和等离子体诊断等相关主题的论文。与其他原创通讯一样，该杂志也发表专题评论和会议记录。同行评审等离子体物理报告是一份同行评议的期刊。我们使用双盲同行评审格式。我们的审稿人团队包括55名审稿人，包括内部审稿人和外部审稿人(70%)。2017年从提交到首次评审的平均周期为40天，从首次评审到验收的平均周期为30天。2017年投稿退稿率为40%。接受发表文章的最终决定由编辑委员会作出。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。
http://www.biomed.cas.cz/physiolres/authors.htm
Plasma Physics Reports is a peer reviewed journal devoted to plasma physics. The journal covers the following topics: high-temperature plasma physics related to the problem of controlled nuclear fusion based on magnetic and inertial confinement; physics of cosmic plasma, including magnetosphere plasma, sun and stellar plasma, etc.; gas discharge plasma and plasma generated by laser and particle beams. The journal also publishes papers on such related topics as plasma electronics, generation of radiation in plasma, and plasma diagnostics. As well as other original communications, the journal publishes topical reviews and conference proceedings.PEER REVIEWPlasma Physics Reports is a peer reviewed journal. We use a double blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes 55 reviewers, both internal and external (70%). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 40 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 30 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 40%. The final decision on the acceptance of an article for publication is made by the Editorial Board.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appropriate reference or citation, (ii) any substantial similarity or overlap with any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.
