CRYSTALLOGR REP+ 润色咨询

CRYSTALLOGRAPHY REPORTS

出版年份:暂无数据 年文章数:3460 投稿命中率: 开通期刊会员,数据随心看

出版周期:Bimonthly 自引率:41.3% 审稿周期: 开通期刊会员,数据随心看

前往期刊查询

投稿信息

投稿信息
审稿费用
暂无数据
版面费用
暂无数据
中国人发表比例
2023年中国人文章占该期刊总数量暂无数据 (2022年为100.00%)
自引率
41.3 %
年文章数
3460
期刊官网
点击查看 (点击次数:3560)
点击查看 (点击次数:2899次)
作者需知
点击查看 (点击次数:368次)
偏重的研究方向
暂无数据
期刊简介
稿件收录要求
Crystallography Reports (Kristallografiya), founded in 1956, publishes original papers, short communications, and reviews on different aspects of crystallography: diffraction and scattering of X-rays, electrons and neutrons; X-ray, electron, and neutron diffraction determination of crystal structure of inorganic and organic materials, including proteins and other biological objects; optical and radiowave spectroscopy; growth, real structure and physical properties of crystals; thin films and partly disordered systems; and the methods used in these studies.

Crystallography Reports  is a journal that publishes original articles short communications, and reviews on various aspects of crystallography: diffraction and scattering of X-rays, electrons, and neutrons, determination of crystal structure of inorganic and organic substances, including proteins and other biological substances; UV-VIS and IR spectroscopy; growth, imperfect structure and physical properties of crystals; thin films, liquid crystals, nanomaterials, partially disordered systems, and the methods of studies.

PEER REVIEW

Crystallography Reports is a peer reviewed journal. We use a single blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes over 20 reviewers, both internal and external (95%). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 20 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 30 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 20%. 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.