发布时间：
发表的国外期刊吗，是否有投稿系统，可在投稿系统里查询
只对电力系统方向比较熟悉，中文期刊：电机工程学报，电网技术，电力系统自动化是国内认可度较高的三个，其中电机工程学报为认可对最高。英文期刊： 北美地区 IEEE trans. on power system, IEEE trans. on smart grid, IEEE trans. on sustainable energy, IEEE trans. on power delivery, 前三个认可度高，其中 power system为最好。 power delivery 与这三个比较IF和认可度都略逊一筹。欧洲 IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution，Electric Power Systems Research，International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems，Energy 这几个里面 energy IF 较高但是业内认可度或者说关注度并不高。相对来说前三个要有更高的认可度。个人认为在以上所有期刊中 IEEE trans. on power system 是最顶级 IEEE trans. on smart grid, IEEE trans. on sustainable energy 为第二梯队 剩下英文期刊可以归为第三梯队。中文期刊没有入选SCI。电机工程学报有一个 英文版CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems 和最近建刊的 Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy 是中国组办的两个英文期刊。不是很清楚有没有进入SCI。
Scientific Reports 是 Natrure 旗下的综合性科学期刊，2012年第一次影响因子为2.9。文章强调“技术”上的先进，但“无需具有重大科研意义”，所以审稿要求低于Nature的其他刊物，投稿者一般都是投Nature系列刊物被拒稿后转投的，所以文章水平还是比较高的，但是由于是新刊物，且发表文章数量过多，因此造成影响因子偏低。
该期刊目前在国内物理界还是受到广泛认可的,但是如果唯影响因子论的老板或单位可能就看不上了.根据一般的投稿经验,期刊审稿时间在1个月左右,其审稿难度远高于同影响因子的期刊,功利的说,除非单位特别认可,否则不建议投稿.
Scientific Reports —出版业的一个新时代
Scientific Reports 是来自 Nature 杂志出版者的一个发表原始研究工作的刊物，在线出版，公开访问，内容涉及自然科学所有领域。
托管在 nature.com（该网站是由Springer Nature出版的80多种刊物的共同门户，每月全球有数百万科学家访问）上， Scientific Reports 是任何人都可以公开访问的，发表在技术上可靠的、各领域内的专业人员感兴趣的原始研究论文，其相关内容的访问不受任何限制。
我的感觉，对于工程领域，审稿很严。我做的是一个“在振动台上测试了典型的 HSR 桥梁，以评估在高强度地震（例如最大考虑地震 (MCE)）中的抗震性能”的研究。审稿意见有54条。大家看看：Reviewer Comments:Reviewer 1The manuscript under consideration presents an investigate on the seismic performance of typical RERSCSS concrete pier used in HSRB with varying seismic strength and design parameters through a series of shaking table tests.The authors carried out a series of shaking table tests on RERSCSS concrete piers (M1-M9). The similarity relation between the test model and prototype is given based on dimensional analysis. Displacement, acceleration and strain sensors were deployed for model response acquisition.The following points should be addressed before it can be considered for publication.The analyses (part 3) should be further organized and underscored. The following issues require careful revision:[1] The description of experimental phenomena should be supported by experimental photographs, such as part 3.1.[2] The pictures given in the manuscript should be analyzed as necessary rather than simply presented to the reader, such as Fig 11.[3] Lines 351-358. The authors discussed the acceleration growth rates. But the manuscript lacks the necessary description of the acceleration growth rates. Only the peak acceleration of the top is given (Fig 12), but the bottom is missing. This is very confusing.[4] The analysis of part 3.4 is meaningless. The difference in stiffness between the two directions is obvious.[5] Fig 14 is confusing. What’s the meaning of the pink line and the shadow? The authors discussed the influence of longitudinal reinforcement rate on the energy dissipation performance according to M2, M3 and M7. While, they differ not only in factor of longitudinal reinforcement rate, but also in factor of axial load ratio and volumetric stirrup ratio. This should be further elaborated.[6] 2. Some pictures in the article should be redesigned. Fig. 9, 14, 15, 19. What the authors want to reflect through the picture is not clear.[7] 3. There is some overlap between the third part and the fourth part, please rearrange the structure of the article.Reviewer 2The authors present an interesting experimental study to investigate the seismic performance of typical high-speed rail (HSR) round-ended rectangular-shaped cross-section solid (RERSCSS) concrete piers by shaking table tests. Several piers design parameters were taking into account. Seismic performance of 9 pier specimens was assessed by analyzing the dynamic behavior from several points of view. The authors collected a large variety of measurement data and the experimental study was quite rich and complete. Nonetheless, the manuscript does not show any theoretical or numerical model that would have helped the comprehension of the results. The organization of the manuscript should be improved. Some parts of the text, as well as some tables and figures, are useless repetitions that do not add to the comprehension of the study. The overall manuscript should be a little more concise. Some figures do not match their captions and should be reorganized. Some revision of the English is needed. Some specific comments are in the following:[8] Page 7, line 119. Please, replace “…the actual results…” with “…the currently available results of…”[9] Page 7, lines 121-123. Here some papers by the earthquake researchers who found such results should be added to the references, for completeness.[10] Page 7, lines 125-130. Here the authors make reference to the risk of building collapse and related codes and practices in the US. Given that the authors are studying Chinese infrastructures, please, explicitly explain the reasons of such reference to the American context.[11] Page 8, lines 131-132. This sentence makes no sense. Please improve the English and reformulate this sentence. Do the authors mean that “Usually concrete piers are characterized by quite different cross-section sizes in the two horizontal directions, forming a wall pier”?[12] Page 8, lines 136-137. The authors state that the experimental research on the seismic performance of HSR circular end concrete piers is still insufficient. Please, provide some reasons why it is still insufficient.[13] Page 9, line 171. Please, explain what “the seismic fortification intensity of the 8-degree zone” is. International readers may not be familiar with the Chinese code…[14] Page 9, line 172-173. Please, replace 0.30g with 0.45g. Explicitly explain why the study focused on the three seismic intensity levels 0.15g, 0.20g, and 0.32g (corresponding to 0.45g, 0.60g, and 0.96g of shaking table test PGAs). If the reason is that the utilized shaking table cannot perform higher levels of PGA, please, state it explicitly for transparency. However, this part should be better moved to section 2.7 ‘Input motion and seismic hazard levels’ for better manuscript organization and readability.[15] Page 9, line 174. Please, replace “Code” with “Chinese code”.[16] Table 1 should be better designed in order to be more readable. The second column is not easily comprehensible, values should be better spaced. Why 7-degree zone and 8-degree zone columns have double values? While 9-degree zone has only a single value?[17] Figure 3. This figure does not match its caption. Please check this figure![18] Table 2. According to this reviewer, the Table 2 is useless. All the design factors and variables here illustrated are better shown in Table 3. It seems that Table 2 is redundant and does not add to the comprehension of the study.[19] Page 13, lines 203-205. Notes to Table 2 should be added to Table 3. Please, check D values for pier models, they are probably in inverted order.[20] Figure 4. This figure does not match its caption. Please check this figure![21] Table 4. Similitude parameters related to material properties can be hardily achieved. Please, explicitly explain how you achieved, and checked, the scaled density values for reinforced concrete.[22] Page 16, line 240. Please, replace “Kn” with “kN”.[23] Page 17, line 254. Please, replace “represent” with “reproduce”.[24] Page 17, line 255. Please, replace “reappear” with “represent”.[25] Figure 7. This figure is quite simplistic and incomplete. Where are the sensors set at the bottom of piers? Please add in a new figure a few photos of sensors installation setup to let readers better understand the measurements that were carried out.[26] Page 18, lines 266-268. Explicitly explain the reason why you choose this specific earthquake for shaking table motions… it would make more sense to choose an earthquake recorded in China, given that the study focused on Chinese infrastructures…[27] Page 18, lines 269. Before “Three…” the authors should explicitly state that ST tests are one-directional and that the vertical component was neglected, adding the reasons of this choice. Moreover, they should explicitly state which horizontal direction (i.e. N or E?) of the recorded earthquake they chose to be used for the ST tests, and why.[28] Figure 9. The order of graphs in this figure might be confusing. Please, consider reorder the graphs as a), c), d), b) clockwise. Moreover, in this reviewer’s opinion, Fourier spectrum would be more readable in linear scale of both axes (for frequencies use range 0-30 Hz or similar).[29] Section 3 ‘Test results and analyses’ and 4 ‘Experimental discussion’ should be reformulated. In the present form they are a bit confusing and repetitive.[30] Page 22, lines 320-322. Here the English is not good and the sentence in not comprehensible. Please, reformulate the sentence.[31] Page 22, lines 322-323. The crack pattern description is too short. Please, provide a wider description of cracks and add some descriptive photos.[32] Page 23, lines 332-343. Please, specify which specimen is considered here. This reviewer suggests moving Figure 17 and related text here. The overall section 3.2 should be better reformulated.[33] Section 3.3 ‘Acceleration responses’ and 4.2 ‘Effect of axial load ratio on acceleration response’ should be reformulated. In the present form they are a bit confusing and repetitive. For example, acceleration growth rate and acceleration increase rate are the same? Please, use one nomenclature and define it the first time it appears in the text.[34] Figure 11. According to this reviewer, the photos embedded in the graphs are very bad and not readable. It is suggested to put them apart in a different figure with a proper caption describing what such photos are about. Furthermore, in graph b) at 0.60g labels are in Chinese. Finally, in the caption x and y directions seem inverted…[35] Page 25, lines 353-358. These lines seem to describe the results shown in Figure 18 and not the ones in Figure 12…[36] Figure 12. For better readability, please, consider increasing the spacing between each bar and related acceleration value.[37] Page 27, lines 365-366. Check the statement “its top moved more in the cross-bridge direction than it did in its cross-bridge direction”...[38] Figure 14. Legend and related lines in the graphs are not clear…[39] Page 29, line 384. Please check section numbering 4.6…[40] Page 30, line 391. Delete “significant”.[41] Page 30, line 400. Define “hoop ratio”...[42] Page 31, line 409. Replace “Fig.Fig.” with “Fig.”.[43] Page 33, lines 435-439. These lines seem to describe the results shown in Figure 12, if so make reference to Figure 12 …[44] Page 33, line 439. Delete “are the absolute weights of the two samples”. Possible typo.[45] Page 34, line 444. Replace “a bit” with “ a little”.[46] Figure 19. Graphs a) and b) are the same as in Figure 11. Useless repetition. Further comments are the same as in Figure 9…[47] Page 36, lines 484-487. Please, check repetitions of “cross-bridge direction”…[48] Page 37, line 496. Consider deleting “…seismic simulation…”. Useless repetition.[49] Page 37, line 499. Consider replacing “…substantial…” with ”… severe…”.[50] Page 37, line 503. Consider replacing “…visible …” with ”… significant…”.[51] Page 37, lines 507-508. Consider deleting “For this reason,…”.[52] Page 37, lines 509-510. According to this reviewer, the sentence “which means that the pier is less vulnerable to damage in the y-direction” is controversial, and should be eliminated or better justified. In fact, seismic vulnerability depends on the considered seismic input spectrum…[53] Page 38, lines 513-514. Consider replacing “… bigger than the displacement in the bridge's cross-sectional direction” with “… bigger in the cis-bridge direction than in the bridge's cross-sectional direction”.[54] Page 38, lines 514-517. The final sentence of 5 Conclusions is not comprehensible, please, reformulate it in a better English.
西电聂丁挺好的。聂丁,博士,副教授,硕士生导师(无线电物理学科),IEEE会员,陕西省物理学会会员。 主要从事地/海复杂雷达通信环境电磁散射特性分析,海洋环境遥感等。
以下为2011年物理二区期刊（2012年的影响因子还没出来）：PROGRESS IN NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPYPHYSICS TODAYPHYSICAL REVIEW DPHYSICS LETTERS BNUCLEAR PHYSICS BACTA PHYSICA SLOVACAPROGRESS IN OPTICS Progress in Electromagnetics Research-PIER Solid State Physics JOURNAL OF APPLIED CRYSTALLOGRAPHYNUCLEAR FUSIONNEW JOURNAL OF PHYSICSADVANCES IN ATOMIC MOLECULAR AND OPTICAL PHYSICSAPPLIED PHYSICS LETTERSPHYSICAL REVIEW BOPTICS EXPRESSADVANCES IN CHEMICAL PHYSICSPHYSICAL REVIEW CPROGRESS IN PARTICLE AND NUCLEAR PHYSICSJOURNAL OF THE MECHANICS AND PHYSICS OF SOLIDSOPTICS LETTERSEUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL CAdvances in High Energy PhysicsCLASSICAL AND QUANTUM GRAVITYJOURNAL OF RAMAN SPECTROSCOPYJOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICSCrystallography ReviewsSPECTROCHIMICA ACTA PART B-ATOMIC SPECTROSCOPYApplied Mechanics Reviews JOURNAL OF RHEOLOGYPHYSICAL REVIEW ARIVISTA DEL NUOVO CIMENTOANNALS OF PHYSICSCommunications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical SimulationPlasma Processes and PolymersCONTEMPORARY PHYSICSJOURNAL OF PHYSICS G-NUCLEAR AND PARTICLE PHYSICSApplied Physics ExpressLASER AND PARTICLE BEAMSJOURNAL OF THE PHYSICAL SOCIETY OF JAPANEUROPHYSICS LETTERSSUPERCONDUCTOR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGYPLASMA PHYSICS AND CONTROLLED FUSION
只对电力系统方向比较熟悉，中文期刊：电机工程学报，电网技术，电力系统自动化是国内认可度较高的三个，其中电机工程学报为认可对最高。英文期刊： 北美地区 IEEE trans. on power system, IEEE trans. on smart grid, IEEE trans. on sustainable energy, IEEE trans. on power delivery, 前三个认可度高，其中 power system为最好。 power delivery 与这三个比较IF和认可度都略逊一筹。欧洲 IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution，Electric Power Systems Research，International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems，Energy 这几个里面 energy IF 较高但是业内认可度或者说关注度并不高。相对来说前三个要有更高的认可度。个人认为在以上所有期刊中 IEEE trans. on power system 是最顶级 IEEE trans. on smart grid, IEEE trans. on sustainable energy 为第二梯队 剩下英文期刊可以归为第三梯队。中文期刊没有入选SCI。电机工程学报有一个 英文版CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems 和最近建刊的 Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy 是中国组办的两个英文期刊。不是很清楚有没有进入SCI。
聂丁，博士，副教授，硕士生导师（无线电物理学科），IEEE会员，陕西省物理学会会员。主要从事地/海复杂雷达通信环境电磁散射特性分析，海洋环境遥感等方面的研究。作为项目负责人主持国家自然科学基金一项，陕西省自然科学基础研究计划项目一项，上海航天科技创新基金一项，校内基金三项，作为主要完成人参与了多项国家自然科学基金项目、国家部委项目等。已在IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing、IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters、IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters、International Journal of Remote Sensing、Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer、Progress In Electromagnetics Research、Waves in Random and Complex Media、Chinese Physics B等国内外著名期刊及会议发表学术论文20余篇，其中SCI/EI检索14篇。担任IEEE TGRS、IEEE TAP、IEEE GRSL、IEEE AWPL、Remote Sensing、JESR、Waves in Random and Complex Media、JEMWA、PIER等期刊的审稿专家。荣获陕西省高等学校科技技术奖一等奖(2018)、物理与光电工程学院第二届青年教师讲课竞赛二等奖(2014)、西安电子科技大学优秀博士学位论文奖（2014）、西安电子科技大学优秀教师称号（2015）、优质教学质量奖（2015）。
发表的国外期刊吗，是否有投稿系统，可在投稿系统里查询
只对电力系统方向比较熟悉，中文期刊：电机工程学报，电网技术，电力系统自动化是国内认可度较高的三个，其中电机工程学报为认可对最高。英文期刊： 北美地区 IEEE trans. on power system, IEEE trans. on smart grid, IEEE trans. on sustainable energy, IEEE trans. on power delivery, 前三个认可度高，其中 power system为最好。 power delivery 与这三个比较IF和认可度都略逊一筹。欧洲 IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution，Electric Power Systems Research，International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems，Energy 这几个里面 energy IF 较高但是业内认可度或者说关注度并不高。相对来说前三个要有更高的认可度。个人认为在以上所有期刊中 IEEE trans. on power system 是最顶级 IEEE trans. on smart grid, IEEE trans. on sustainable energy 为第二梯队 剩下英文期刊可以归为第三梯队。中文期刊没有入选SCI。电机工程学报有一个 英文版CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems 和最近建刊的 Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy 是中国组办的两个英文期刊。不是很清楚有没有进入SCI。
Scientific Reports 是 Natrure 旗下的综合性科学期刊，2012年第一次影响因子为2.9。文章强调“技术”上的先进，但“无需具有重大科研意义”，所以审稿要求低于Nature的其他刊物，投稿者一般都是投Nature系列刊物被拒稿后转投的，所以文章水平还是比较高的，但是由于是新刊物，且发表文章数量过多，因此造成影响因子偏低。
该期刊目前在国内物理界还是受到广泛认可的,但是如果唯影响因子论的老板或单位可能就看不上了.根据一般的投稿经验,期刊审稿时间在1个月左右,其审稿难度远高于同影响因子的期刊,功利的说,除非单位特别认可,否则不建议投稿.
Scientific Reports —出版业的一个新时代
Scientific Reports 是来自 Nature 杂志出版者的一个发表原始研究工作的刊物，在线出版，公开访问，内容涉及自然科学所有领域。
托管在 nature.com（该网站是由Springer Nature出版的80多种刊物的共同门户，每月全球有数百万科学家访问）上， Scientific Reports 是任何人都可以公开访问的，发表在技术上可靠的、各领域内的专业人员感兴趣的原始研究论文，其相关内容的访问不受任何限制。
我的感觉，对于工程领域，审稿很严。我做的是一个“在振动台上测试了典型的 HSR 桥梁，以评估在高强度地震（例如最大考虑地震 (MCE)）中的抗震性能”的研究。审稿意见有54条。大家看看：Reviewer Comments:Reviewer 1The manuscript under consideration presents an investigate on the seismic performance of typical RERSCSS concrete pier used in HSRB with varying seismic strength and design parameters through a series of shaking table tests.The authors carried out a series of shaking table tests on RERSCSS concrete piers (M1-M9). The similarity relation between the test model and prototype is given based on dimensional analysis. Displacement, acceleration and strain sensors were deployed for model response acquisition.The following points should be addressed before it can be considered for publication.The analyses (part 3) should be further organized and underscored. The following issues require careful revision:[1] The description of experimental phenomena should be supported by experimental photographs, such as part 3.1.[2] The pictures given in the manuscript should be analyzed as necessary rather than simply presented to the reader, such as Fig 11.[3] Lines 351-358. The authors discussed the acceleration growth rates. But the manuscript lacks the necessary description of the acceleration growth rates. Only the peak acceleration of the top is given (Fig 12), but the bottom is missing. This is very confusing.[4] The analysis of part 3.4 is meaningless. The difference in stiffness between the two directions is obvious.[5] Fig 14 is confusing. What’s the meaning of the pink line and the shadow? The authors discussed the influence of longitudinal reinforcement rate on the energy dissipation performance according to M2, M3 and M7. While, they differ not only in factor of longitudinal reinforcement rate, but also in factor of axial load ratio and volumetric stirrup ratio. This should be further elaborated.[6] 2. Some pictures in the article should be redesigned. Fig. 9, 14, 15, 19. What the authors want to reflect through the picture is not clear.[7] 3. There is some overlap between the third part and the fourth part, please rearrange the structure of the article.Reviewer 2The authors present an interesting experimental study to investigate the seismic performance of typical high-speed rail (HSR) round-ended rectangular-shaped cross-section solid (RERSCSS) concrete piers by shaking table tests. Several piers design parameters were taking into account. Seismic performance of 9 pier specimens was assessed by analyzing the dynamic behavior from several points of view. The authors collected a large variety of measurement data and the experimental study was quite rich and complete. Nonetheless, the manuscript does not show any theoretical or numerical model that would have helped the comprehension of the results. The organization of the manuscript should be improved. Some parts of the text, as well as some tables and figures, are useless repetitions that do not add to the comprehension of the study. The overall manuscript should be a little more concise. Some figures do not match their captions and should be reorganized. Some revision of the English is needed. Some specific comments are in the following:[8] Page 7, line 119. Please, replace “…the actual results…” with “…the currently available results of…”[9] Page 7, lines 121-123. Here some papers by the earthquake researchers who found such results should be added to the references, for completeness.[10] Page 7, lines 125-130. Here the authors make reference to the risk of building collapse and related codes and practices in the US. Given that the authors are studying Chinese infrastructures, please, explicitly explain the reasons of such reference to the American context.[11] Page 8, lines 131-132. This sentence makes no sense. Please improve the English and reformulate this sentence. Do the authors mean that “Usually concrete piers are characterized by quite different cross-section sizes in the two horizontal directions, forming a wall pier”?[12] Page 8, lines 136-137. The authors state that the experimental research on the seismic performance of HSR circular end concrete piers is still insufficient. Please, provide some reasons why it is still insufficient.[13] Page 9, line 171. Please, explain what “the seismic fortification intensity of the 8-degree zone” is. International readers may not be familiar with the Chinese code…[14] Page 9, line 172-173. Please, replace 0.30g with 0.45g. Explicitly explain why the study focused on the three seismic intensity levels 0.15g, 0.20g, and 0.32g (corresponding to 0.45g, 0.60g, and 0.96g of shaking table test PGAs). If the reason is that the utilized shaking table cannot perform higher levels of PGA, please, state it explicitly for transparency. However, this part should be better moved to section 2.7 ‘Input motion and seismic hazard levels’ for better manuscript organization and readability.[15] Page 9, line 174. Please, replace “Code” with “Chinese code”.[16] Table 1 should be better designed in order to be more readable. The second column is not easily comprehensible, values should be better spaced. Why 7-degree zone and 8-degree zone columns have double values? While 9-degree zone has only a single value?[17] Figure 3. This figure does not match its caption. Please check this figure![18] Table 2. According to this reviewer, the Table 2 is useless. All the design factors and variables here illustrated are better shown in Table 3. It seems that Table 2 is redundant and does not add to the comprehension of the study.[19] Page 13, lines 203-205. Notes to Table 2 should be added to Table 3. Please, check D values for pier models, they are probably in inverted order.[20] Figure 4. This figure does not match its caption. Please check this figure![21] Table 4. Similitude parameters related to material properties can be hardily achieved. Please, explicitly explain how you achieved, and checked, the scaled density values for reinforced concrete.[22] Page 16, line 240. Please, replace “Kn” with “kN”.[23] Page 17, line 254. Please, replace “represent” with “reproduce”.[24] Page 17, line 255. Please, replace “reappear” with “represent”.[25] Figure 7. This figure is quite simplistic and incomplete. Where are the sensors set at the bottom of piers? Please add in a new figure a few photos of sensors installation setup to let readers better understand the measurements that were carried out.[26] Page 18, lines 266-268. Explicitly explain the reason why you choose this specific earthquake for shaking table motions… it would make more sense to choose an earthquake recorded in China, given that the study focused on Chinese infrastructures…[27] Page 18, lines 269. Before “Three…” the authors should explicitly state that ST tests are one-directional and that the vertical component was neglected, adding the reasons of this choice. Moreover, they should explicitly state which horizontal direction (i.e. N or E?) of the recorded earthquake they chose to be used for the ST tests, and why.[28] Figure 9. The order of graphs in this figure might be confusing. Please, consider reorder the graphs as a), c), d), b) clockwise. Moreover, in this reviewer’s opinion, Fourier spectrum would be more readable in linear scale of both axes (for frequencies use range 0-30 Hz or similar).[29] Section 3 ‘Test results and analyses’ and 4 ‘Experimental discussion’ should be reformulated. In the present form they are a bit confusing and repetitive.[30] Page 22, lines 320-322. Here the English is not good and the sentence in not comprehensible. Please, reformulate the sentence.[31] Page 22, lines 322-323. The crack pattern description is too short. Please, provide a wider description of cracks and add some descriptive photos.[32] Page 23, lines 332-343. Please, specify which specimen is considered here. This reviewer suggests moving Figure 17 and related text here. The overall section 3.2 should be better reformulated.[33] Section 3.3 ‘Acceleration responses’ and 4.2 ‘Effect of axial load ratio on acceleration response’ should be reformulated. In the present form they are a bit confusing and repetitive. For example, acceleration growth rate and acceleration increase rate are the same? Please, use one nomenclature and define it the first time it appears in the text.[34] Figure 11. According to this reviewer, the photos embedded in the graphs are very bad and not readable. It is suggested to put them apart in a different figure with a proper caption describing what such photos are about. Furthermore, in graph b) at 0.60g labels are in Chinese. Finally, in the caption x and y directions seem inverted…[35] Page 25, lines 353-358. These lines seem to describe the results shown in Figure 18 and not the ones in Figure 12…[36] Figure 12. For better readability, please, consider increasing the spacing between each bar and related acceleration value.[37] Page 27, lines 365-366. Check the statement “its top moved more in the cross-bridge direction than it did in its cross-bridge direction”...[38] Figure 14. Legend and related lines in the graphs are not clear…[39] Page 29, line 384. Please check section numbering 4.6…[40] Page 30, line 391. Delete “significant”.[41] Page 30, line 400. Define “hoop ratio”...[42] Page 31, line 409. Replace “Fig.Fig.” with “Fig.”.[43] Page 33, lines 435-439. These lines seem to describe the results shown in Figure 12, if so make reference to Figure 12 …[44] Page 33, line 439. Delete “are the absolute weights of the two samples”. Possible typo.[45] Page 34, line 444. Replace “a bit” with “ a little”.[46] Figure 19. Graphs a) and b) are the same as in Figure 11. Useless repetition. Further comments are the same as in Figure 9…[47] Page 36, lines 484-487. Please, check repetitions of “cross-bridge direction”…[48] Page 37, line 496. Consider deleting “…seismic simulation…”. Useless repetition.[49] Page 37, line 499. Consider replacing “…substantial…” with ”… severe…”.[50] Page 37, line 503. Consider replacing “…visible …” with ”… significant…”.[51] Page 37, lines 507-508. Consider deleting “For this reason,…”.[52] Page 37, lines 509-510. According to this reviewer, the sentence “which means that the pier is less vulnerable to damage in the y-direction” is controversial, and should be eliminated or better justified. In fact, seismic vulnerability depends on the considered seismic input spectrum…[53] Page 38, lines 513-514. Consider replacing “… bigger than the displacement in the bridge's cross-sectional direction” with “… bigger in the cis-bridge direction than in the bridge's cross-sectional direction”.[54] Page 38, lines 514-517. The final sentence of 5 Conclusions is not comprehensible, please, reformulate it in a better English.
Scientific Reports 是 Natrure 旗下的综合性科学期刊，2012年第一次影响因子为2.9。文章强调“技术”上的先进，但“无需具有重大科研意义”，所以审稿要求低于Nature的其他刊物，投稿者一般都是投Nature系列刊物被拒稿后转投的，所以文章水平还是比较高的，但是由于是新刊物，且发表文章数量过多，因此造成影响因子偏低。
该期刊目前在国内物理界还是受到广泛认可的,但是如果唯影响因子论的老板或单位可能就看不上了.根据一般的投稿经验,期刊审稿时间在1个月左右,其审稿难度远高于同影响因子的期刊,功利的说,除非单位特别认可,否则不建议投稿.
Scientific Reports —出版业的一个新时代
Scientific Reports 是来自 Nature 杂志出版者的一个发表原始研究工作的刊物，在线出版，公开访问，内容涉及自然科学所有领域。
托管在 nature.com（该网站是由Springer Nature出版的80多种刊物的共同门户，每月全球有数百万科学家访问）上， Scientific Reports 是任何人都可以公开访问的，发表在技术上可靠的、各领域内的专业人员感兴趣的原始研究论文，其相关内容的访问不受任何限制。
聂丁学识渊博，Media、JEMWA、PIER等期刊的审稿专家。荣获陕西省高等学校科技技术奖一等奖(2018)、物理与光电工程学院第二届青年教师讲课竞赛二等奖(2014)、西安电子科技大学优秀博士学位论文奖（2014）、西安电子科技大学优秀教师称号（2015）、优质教学质量奖（博士，副教授，硕士生导师（无线电物理学科），IEEE会员，陕西省物理学会会员。主要从事地/海复杂雷达通信环境电磁散射特性分析，海洋环境遥感等方面的研究。作为项目负责人主持国家自然科学基金一项，陕西省自然科学基础研究计划项目一项，上海航天科技创新基金一项，校内基金三项，作为主要完成人参与了多项国家自然科学基金项目、国家部委项目等。
以下为2011年物理二区期刊（2012年的影响因子还没出来）：PROGRESS IN NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPYPHYSICS TODAYPHYSICAL REVIEW DPHYSICS LETTERS BNUCLEAR PHYSICS BACTA PHYSICA SLOVACAPROGRESS IN OPTICS Progress in Electromagnetics Research-PIER Solid State Physics JOURNAL OF APPLIED CRYSTALLOGRAPHYNUCLEAR FUSIONNEW JOURNAL OF PHYSICSADVANCES IN ATOMIC MOLECULAR AND OPTICAL PHYSICSAPPLIED PHYSICS LETTERSPHYSICAL REVIEW BOPTICS EXPRESSADVANCES IN CHEMICAL PHYSICSPHYSICAL REVIEW CPROGRESS IN PARTICLE AND NUCLEAR PHYSICSJOURNAL OF THE MECHANICS AND PHYSICS OF SOLIDSOPTICS LETTERSEUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL CAdvances in High Energy PhysicsCLASSICAL AND QUANTUM GRAVITYJOURNAL OF RAMAN SPECTROSCOPYJOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICSCrystallography ReviewsSPECTROCHIMICA ACTA PART B-ATOMIC SPECTROSCOPYApplied Mechanics Reviews JOURNAL OF RHEOLOGYPHYSICAL REVIEW ARIVISTA DEL NUOVO CIMENTOANNALS OF PHYSICSCommunications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical SimulationPlasma Processes and PolymersCONTEMPORARY PHYSICSJOURNAL OF PHYSICS G-NUCLEAR AND PARTICLE PHYSICSApplied Physics ExpressLASER AND PARTICLE BEAMSJOURNAL OF THE PHYSICAL SOCIETY OF JAPANEUROPHYSICS LETTERSSUPERCONDUCTOR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGYPLASMA PHYSICS AND CONTROLLED FUSION
人们对其的认知比较弱，没有PNAS强。
PNAS创刊100多周年,背后是美国国家科学院,在每年总引用量仅次于Nature,高于Science。而scientific report的水准现在基本和APS的PR（A-E）系列持平,算不上一线期刊,拍马也赶不上PNAS.唯一有可能冲击PNAS是的是Nat.Comm。
Scientific Reports”是Nature Publishing Group (NPG)出版的一份开放存取的在线期刊，SCIE收录。2013年的IF为5.078。
Nature和science在形式上有它们的相同性。比如科技论文基本以3种形式出现：(1)学术论文：《Nature》：Articale；《Science》：Research articale；(2)研究报道：《Nature》：Letter;《Science》：Report;(3)通讯：《Nature》:Correspondence；《Science》：Letter。研究文章较长，一般可在5—7页左右。研究报道一般为2—4页，通讯一般不超过1页。但两刊的一个重要差别是《Science》允许参考文献中在一个参考文献号下列出一个以上的文献，同时也允许在参考文献下加入简要注解说明等。这2点在《Nature》中都是不允许的。因此，在同一类文章形式中，《Science》提供了较大的空间。———摘自《Science与Nature杂志详解》
下面列出了电气工程专业的SCI期刊（按影响因子排序）1. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics (2014 IF=6.498 一区): 控制、仪表、电气（电机、电力电子、电力系统的设备，只要和电力电子沾上边的都可以）2. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics (2014 IF=6.008 一区)：电力电子3. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid (2014 IF=4.252 一区)：智能电网4. IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine (2014 IF=4.031 一区)：同1（包括非技术领域）5. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy (2014 IF=3.656 二区)：新能源（光伏、风力发电等）6. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems (2014 IF=2.814 二区)：电力系统7. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion (2014 IF=2.326 二区)：电气设备、器件、系统8. IET Renewable Power Generation (2014 IF=1.904 三区)：新能源9. IEEE Transactions on Industry applications (2014 IF=1.756 三区)：电气设备、器件、系统的工业应用10. Electric Power Systems Research (2014 IF=1.749 三区)：电力系统11. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery (2014 IF=1.733 三区)：输配电和保护装置12. IET Power Electronics (2014 IF=1.683 三区)：电力电子13. IEEE Power & Energy Magazine (2014 IF=1.593 三区)：电力能源（包括非技术领域）14. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics (2014 IF=1.386 三区)：磁学相关（电机、变压器）15. IET Generation Transmission & Distribution (2014 IF=1.353 三区)：输配电16. IEEE Transactions on ELectromagnetic Compatibility (2014 IF=1.297 三区)：电磁兼容17. IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation (2014 IF=1.278 三区)：电气绝缘18. IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity (2014 IF=1.235 四区)：超导应用19. Progress in Electromagnetics Research-PIER (2014 IF=1.229 四区)：电磁研究20. IET Electric Power Applications (2014 IF=1.211 三区)：电机类技术21. International Journal of Applied Electromagnetics and Mechanics (2014 IF=0.815 四区)：电磁场类（计算等）22. Journal of Power Electronics (2014 IF=0.777 四区)：电力电子23. International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems (2014 IF=0.490 四区)：电力系统24. IEEE Industry Applications Magazine (2014 IF=0.352 四区)：电气设备、器件、系统的工业应用（包括非技术领域）25. IEEJ Transactions on Electrical and Electronic Engineering (2014 IF=0.213 四区)：电气工程
中国电机工程学报电力系统自动化 电工技术学报 高电压技术 电网技术(中文核心期刊)EEE Power & Energy magazine Power Electronics LettersIEEE Transactions on Power Delivery IEEE Transactions on Power Systems IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid Transactions on Circuits and Systems Transactions on dielectrics and electrical insulation Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems Power Systems Research Transactions on Electrical Power Proceeding Generation, Transmission & Distribution Electric Power Applications Power Components & Systems Journal of Power and Energy Systems (EI)中国电机工程学报电力系统自动化 电工技术学报 高电压技术 电网技术(中文核心期刊)
发表的国外期刊吗，是否有投稿系统，可在投稿系统里查询
Scientific Reports 是 Natrure 旗下的综合性科学期刊，2012年第一次影响因子为2.9。文章强调“技术”上的先进，但“无需具有重大科研意义”，所以审稿要求低于Nature的其他刊物，投稿者一般都是投Nature系列刊物被拒稿后转投的，所以文章水平还是比较高的，但是由于是新刊物，且发表文章数量过多，因此造成影响因子偏低。
该期刊目前在国内物理界还是受到广泛认可的,但是如果唯影响因子论的老板或单位可能就看不上了.根据一般的投稿经验,期刊审稿时间在1个月左右,其审稿难度远高于同影响因子的期刊,功利的说,除非单位特别认可,否则不建议投稿.
Scientific Reports —出版业的一个新时代
Scientific Reports 是来自 Nature 杂志出版者的一个发表原始研究工作的刊物，在线出版，公开访问，内容涉及自然科学所有领域。
托管在 nature.com（该网站是由Springer Nature出版的80多种刊物的共同门户，每月全球有数百万科学家访问）上， Scientific Reports 是任何人都可以公开访问的，发表在技术上可靠的、各领域内的专业人员感兴趣的原始研究论文，其相关内容的访问不受任何限制。