中文簡(jiǎn)介

《原子核物理學(xué)》(Yadernaya fizika)成立于1965年，是俄羅斯主要的關(guān)于基本粒子和原子核的期刊。主題包括核物理的實(shí)驗(yàn)和理論研究:核結(jié)構(gòu)、光譜和性質(zhì);由光子、輕子、強(qiáng)子和原子核引起的輻射、裂變和核反應(yīng);基本相互作用和對(duì)稱性;強(qiáng)子(具有光、奇異、魅力和底夸克);高能和超高能粒子碰撞;量程與統(tǒng)一量子場(chǎng)論、夸克模型、超對(duì)稱性與超重力、天體物理學(xué)與宇宙學(xué)。該雜志面向研究人員、核工程師和大學(xué)。同行評(píng)審原子核物理學(xué)是一本同行評(píng)議的期刊。我們使用雙盲同行評(píng)審格式。我們的審稿人團(tuán)隊(duì)包括80多名審稿人，包括內(nèi)部審稿人和外部審稿人(95%)。2017年從提交到首次評(píng)審的平均周期為3天，從首次評(píng)審到驗(yàn)收的平均周期為14天。接受發(fā)表文章的最終決定由同行評(píng)審人員做出。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/physics/particle+and+nuclear+physics/journal/11450

英文簡(jiǎn)介

Physics of Atomic Nuclei (Yadernaya fizika) was founded in 1965 as the leading Russian journal on elementary particles and nuclei. The topics covered are the experimental and theoretical studies of nuclear physics: nuclear structure, spectra, and properties; radiation, fission, and nuclear reactions induced by photons, leptons, hadrons, and nuclei; fundamental interactions and symmetries; hadrons (with light, strange, charm, and bottom quarks); particle collisions at high and superhigh energies; gauge and unified quantum field theories, quark models, supersymmetry and supergravity, astrophysics and cosmology. The journal is intended for researchers, nuclear engineers, and universities.PEER REVIEWPhysics of Atomic Nuclei is a peer reviewed journal. We use a double blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes over 80 reviewers, both internal and external (95%). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 3 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 14 days. The final decision on the acceptance of an article for publication is made by the Peer Reviewers.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.