首先是初审。将论文进行分类并交给各栏目的学术编辑，由编辑进行初审（1-3个工作日） ；
然后要求修改润色。根据初审的具体情况，编辑往往会根据杂志社的要求给作者提出一些关于文章的修改要求，作者需要针对此进行不要的调整和修改，以便论文顺利发表。
文章检测抄袭率（一般在中国知网进行）。因检测论文抄袭率将产生费用（论文检测的费用或由社内承担，或由作者交纳），所以论文检测是在费用办理后进行的。组稿文章可先检测。
提稿、复审。编辑初审过了，接下来就由编辑将稿件转给审稿专家（有的刊物在网上有在线审稿、编稿系统，他们直接就在网络上完成了），审稿专家审稿主要就看文章的学术含量了，但他们也会考虑到该刊物的接受水平。
定稿。审稿意见返回编辑，编辑再转给主编终审（有的刊物会定期召开编委会议，专题讨论论文录用与否），确定通过了就由编辑向作者发出通知。
中国集体经济有审稿费。根据查询相关公开信息显示，根据刊物的主管单位判断，经济师是省级刊物，中国集体经济是国家级刊物，审稿极为严格，需要审稿费。
加分。一些高校硕士博士想要顺利毕业，只要在像人民日报理论版、光明日报理论版、经济日报理论版发表文章，就都可以加分用得上。可见这几个报纸的权威级别和份量价值。当然，在这类报纸刊登发表文章，对投稿文章质量水平要求是非常高的，编辑审稿极其严格，不是普通稿件就能随便蒙混过关的。
王应宽Wang Yingkuan2011-07-23Beijing, China因为同时在运作3本国际英文刊（IJABE, IAEJ, CIGR Journal），论文同行评审的专家来自世界各地。每次收到的评审意见千差万别，而且不同国家或地区的专家的评审意见呈现一定的规律性，随即不由得做些比较。比较得出的基本结论是：欧美国家专家的评审意见详尽具有更大参考价值，台湾地区的同行评审专家次之，大陆专家的评审意见最为简省。文后附上几篇评审意见（所列大陆专家评审意见还是相对较好的），看看便知，一目了然。我曾与编辑同行讨论关于国内专家审稿的问题。共同的见解是，一线一流的专家基本不审稿。若应邀审稿，要么直接拒审，要么敷衍几句了事；比较认真的专家大都让其所指导的研究生代为评审论文。不论让谁审，最后的评审意见与国外专家的评审相比总不令人满意，存在较大的差距。国外专家评审论文大都是义务劳动，没有任何报酬。但专家们认为自己作为科研人员是科学共同体中的一分子，有义务担任同行专家为他人研究成果的学术质量把关。自己为别人的论文评审把关付出了智慧和劳动，别人也会为自己的研究和论文评审把关，也会付出相应的劳动。专家之间相互协作，相互帮助，虽然没有评审报酬，但大家都觉得平等。而且，国外的专家大都言行一致，故能认真地做好每一篇文章的评审工作。有的评审意见详尽的令人赞叹、钦佩和感动。因此，大家看到他们的评审意见都非常详尽而具有参考价值。而国内的专家评审论文为何大都仓促应付，三言两语，或言之无物，或毫无参考价值？主要原因是一线一流的专家都太“忙”，以至忙得都没时间做学术了。据我从事学术期刊工作十多年的经历，不论评审中文文章还是英文文章，国内专家评审意见普遍简单，评审的质量不高，不但看不出有改观的迹象，还有进一步恶化的趋势。文章中存在的很多的问题，专家审后没有看出来或没有指出来。如果直接发表，错误或疏漏太多影响论文的质量和期刊的声誉。在外审专家靠不住时，就要依靠内审做些完善和提高。如果外审专家把不好关，编辑部又无能力通过内审把关，发表出来的论文的质量也就可想而知了。是否国内专家不擅长评审论文呢？非也。据了解，许多国内专家被国外知名期刊邀请审稿时，他们非常积极认真地评审论文，并在规定时间返回颇有水准的评审意见。据说他们也能做得与欧美国际同行专家一样好。可见，国内专家评不好国内期刊论文不是水平问题，而是态度问题，“时间”问题，或者有其他方面的原因。同行评审是学术期刊论文质量把关的重要途径。如果大家都不在乎，把严肃认真的“盲审”变成“瞎审”，学术危矣！国内期刊请国内专家评审论文大都支付审稿费的。当然，限于各期刊的经济困难，审稿费报酬普遍都不高。因此，同行专家大都不很在乎那点可怜的审稿费。如果评审不好文章会影响专家的声誉和公信度。国内特别是大陆的专家既不在乎钱，也不在乎自己的声誉，不知道他们究竟在乎啥？中国是雷锋诞生的国度，按理说，当志愿者做公益应该很有基础。但在学术圈，就拿国内外同行专家无私奉献评审论文作比较，中国的同行专家做的还很不够，需要好好向国际同行学习。附：CIGR Journal栏目主编加拿大专家对一篇退稿文章的评审意见June 27, 2011Dear Prof. H L L:Re: CIGR Manuscript 1911 EFFECTS OF TRACTOR INFLATION PRESSURE AND TRAFFIC ON SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIESAs CIGR section editor, I have conducted a preliminary review of the above manuscript.The manuscript addresses a significant engineering problem in agricultural crop production, and as such, the subject matter is of interest to CIGR.However, the manuscript is deficient in several scientific areas.The decision is to decline the manuscript without peer review.My preliminary review is attached to the end of this email.Please note that the preliminary review is by no means a comprehensive review.The manuscript is released, and you are free to submit it for publication in another journal.Thank you for considering CIGR for publication of your work and I wish you success in getting your work published.SincerelyP.Eng., Ph.D.,CIGR Section III editor,Research Scientist, Agricultural Engineering,Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,Section Editor ReviewTitle: EFFECTS OF TRACTOR INFLATION PRESSURE AND TRAFFIC ON SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIESCIGR # 1911Authors:H L L et al.June 27, 2011General:The manuscript addresses soil compaction by multiple passes with agricultural machinery which is a timely topic and of importance to sustainable agricultural production.There are numerous grammatical errors although the meaning is generally clear.It is strongly recommended that the authors seek the assistance of someone well versed in English to help with the grammar.The manuscript is not acceptable in its present form.It needs a lot of work.The biggest problem with the manuscript is that key pieces of information are not given, and that the data analysis is not complete.Some of the major deficiencies are listed below although this is by no means an exhaustive list.Soil characteristics.It is well known that soil characteristics have a huge influence on soil compaction.The only description given is that the soil was a sandy loam.Things like soil series, percent sand, silt and clay, soil organic matter all influence compaction and need to be provided.Tractor specifications: Total tractor weight, tractor axle (or wheel) weights, are critical pieces of information required for compaction studies, but they are not given.Tire pressure was given, but no information was given on whether these pressures were the same for front and rear tires.Often, tractor manufacturers recommend different pressures for front and rear tires, particularly on tractors with different sizes of front and rear tires.Slip was measured, but there was no mention made of whether the tractor was free wheeling (no implement draft) or whether it was pulling a load.The drawbar load on a tractor has a huge effect on wheel slip, and must be specified.It was mentioned that a 4WD tractor was used, and different tire sizes were given for front and rear tires which implies that it was a front wheel assist.It needs to be specified whether or not the front wheel drive was engaged.Results: A randomized complete block statistical design with three replicates was specified.However, the results are given in a series of tables with simple means with no statistical analysis. The results need to be subjected to appropriate statistical analysis, i.e. ANOVA or multiple regression analysis, and appropriate post hoc tests applied to determine which means are statistically different from each other.The experimental design employed lends itself to standard statistical analysis of the results.Graphs should be used when appropriate to help illustrate the data and the trends.Table 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 and elsewhere. Cone index has wrong units.Cone index is normally given in MPa or kPa.Also, the values for cone index are much lower than normally expected.Section 2.3It is not necessary to list all of the equipment used such as oven, air compressor, etc.All you need to say is that samples were oven dried at 105�0�2 C for soil moisture determinations.Things like air compressor and pressure gauge are every day shop equipment, are understood to be necessary for any type of experiment where inflation pressures are changed.However, things like the penetrometer, and shear vane meter should be specified.These are specialized pieces of equipment and their performance can affect the results.Section 2.5.Need to provide information on which soil cone penetrometer you used.Also, how many penetrometer measurements per plot per pass?3)In Figure 4, the text “USB Connection” was overlapped by the line.4)In Figure 4, the line with the “Information Collection” is missing an arrow.5)In Figure 7, the text “field identifying number” was covered by the line.6)In Figure 8, some texts are placed out of the frames.7)Please use consistent fonts in figures throughout the article.Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor/Editor-in-chiefI recommend the authors should use consistent fonts throughout the article. The paper cannot be accepted in its present form.中国大陆专家1评审论文意见Section III: CommentsThis section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need. General Comments:This paper assess the O2 consumption rate and the CO2 evolution rate in tomato pomace treated with Pleurotus ostreatus without and with Mn to determine if peak colonization rate (for heightened delignification) was delayed by amendment. Generally speaking, the author’s work is useful and suggestive. The author gives a brief introduction to the related work and compares his ideas to others. The theoretical analysis of this article is strong.In all, this manuscript has good novelty and strong technical strength, I’m looking forward the results of further investigations on this topic.Specific comments:In Table 1, notes are not enough in this manuscript. In the Results and Discussion, results have been detailed explained, but some theoretical analysis of the experimental data are not sufficient.Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division EditorI hope the paper will be published to guide more researchers.Reviewers’ information (Blind to Authors)中国大陆专家2评审论文意见(相对而言属于国内专家评审较为认真仔细的了)Section III: CommentsThis section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need. General Comments:Variable Spray will play an important role in saving resources, protecting environment, raising quality of agricultural product. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate PWM-based continuous variable spray in terms of spray distribution pattern, spray droplet size, and spray angle for flat-fan, hollow-cone and solid-cone nozzles. The test design, results, analysis and conclusion are correct. After re-review, this paper may be published, I think.Specific comments:(1)I have read a paper named “Variable rate Continuous Spray Equipment Based on PWM Technology and Its Spray Characteristics”, which was published in Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2008, 39 (6): 77-80 (in Chinese)”(see the attachment), I think that is a previous study work of the authors. If that is correct, I suggest the author adding that paper in the references of this paper. And then, the contents which have been described in the previous paper can be deleted from this paper.(2)In the abstract “The sensitivities of the spray angles to flow-rate are 0.8254o/%、0.6681o/%、0.5761o/% respectively for flat-fan, the hollow-cone and the solid-cone nozzles”. In English, without the symbol “、”.(3)The numerical data in the conclusion are not the same as those in the abstract”.Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division EditorReviewers’ information (Blind to Authors)中国大陆专家3评审论文意见Section III: CommentsThis section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need. General Comments:This paper is more important, but it still needs major revision requiring re-review.Specific comments:Revision suggestions of this paper: 1. The study results and conclusions should be clarified in abstract.2. It should be described clearly about the data and size of NACA0015 airfoil which was selected in the numerical simulation in section 2.1.3. It should be described clearly about the specific quantitative conditions of icing in section 3.4. This paper is required re-review after revision.Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor
