中文簡(jiǎn)介

《歐亞土壤科學(xué)》是一份國(guó)際同行評(píng)議期刊，發(fā)表關(guān)于全球和區(qū)域土壤成因、地理、物理、化學(xué)、生物學(xué)、肥力、管理、保護(hù)和修復(fù)的理論和實(shí)驗(yàn)研究的原創(chuàng)文章。該雜志歡迎所有國(guó)家的英文或俄文手稿。同行評(píng)審《歐亞土壤科學(xué)》是一份同行評(píng)議期刊。我們使用雙盲同行評(píng)審格式。我們的評(píng)審團(tuán)隊(duì)包括來(lái)自8個(gè)國(guó)家(美國(guó)、奧地利、德國(guó)、匈牙利、格魯吉亞等)的190多名國(guó)內(nèi)外評(píng)審人員(65%)。2017年從提交到首次評(píng)審的平均周期為25天，從首次評(píng)審到驗(yàn)收的平均周期為60天。2017年投稿退稿率為15%。接受發(fā)表文章的最終決定由編輯委員會(huì)作出。被邀請(qǐng)的審稿人因利益沖突，認(rèn)為不符合審稿條件或者不能審稿的，應(yīng)當(dāng)及時(shí)通知審稿人，并予以拒絕。審稿人應(yīng)以一種合理合理的方式清晰地闡述自己的觀點(diǎn)，這樣作者才能利用審稿人的觀點(diǎn)來(lái)完善稿件。必須避免對(duì)作者的個(gè)人批評(píng)。評(píng)論者應(yīng)該顯示發(fā)表的一篇評(píng)論(我)任何相關(guān)的工作沒(méi)有被引用的作者,(2)任何已報(bào)道在以前的出版物和沒(méi)有適當(dāng)?shù)膮⒖蓟蛞?(2)任何實(shí)質(zhì)性相似或重疊與其他手稿(發(fā)表或未發(fā)表)的個(gè)人知識(shí)。

投稿網(wǎng)址：https://www.springer.com/earth+sciences+and+geography/engineering+geology/journal/11475

英文簡(jiǎn)介

Eurasian Soil Science is an international peer reviewed journal that publishes original articles on global and regional theoretical and experimental studies of the genesis, geography, physics, chemistry, biology, fertility, management, conservation, and remediation of soils. The journal welcomes manuscripts from all countries in the English or Russian language.PEER REVIEWEurasian Soil Science is a peer reviewed journal. We use a double blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes over 190 reviewers, both internal and external (65%), from 8 coutntries (USA, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Georgia, etc.). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 25 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 60 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 15%. 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appropriate reference or citation, (ii) any substantial similarity or overlap with any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.