论文集就是受认可的。
会议论文集论文算正式发表吗？论文集有两种类型，一种是期刊出版的论文集，另一种就是会议论文集了，会议论文集的适用范围以及认可度通常是高于期刊论文集的，毕竟高水平的学术会议学术价值也是非常高的，相比较而言，期刊论文集则没有这么高的认可度以及适用范围，期刊论文集在大多数情况下不受认可，而会议论文集只要学术会议是正规会议，
所以文章发表在正规学术会议出版的论文集，这当然算是论文正式发表，会议论文的发表无论是在国内还是在国外，都是备受认可的，特别是国际上一些影响力比较大的权威学术会议，这种会议以及这种会议宣读并发表的论文学术价值都是非常高的，可以算是顶尖学术论文的发表了，因此这类会议论文集作者是可以放心发表的
相较之下，水平相对一般的会议论文集其学术价值也较为有限，在特定领域中发挥的作用也比较有限
会议论文和期刊论文中，期刊论文含金量高。
会议论文是以会议方式提交到EI数据库，属于CA方式。期刊则属于JA方式。要说明的是，JA质量一般都比CA要高，不过JA的期刊EI每年都会更新，所以有可能你投的期刊，今年是EI，明年就不是了被踢了。
期刊论文和会议论文是不同的文献类型. 正式出版的期刊都有国际标准期刊号. 会议论文,要看会议主办单位,有一些学术会议,在会前出论文集,会后不再出版论文集；有一些学术会议,在会后正式出版论文集,具有出版社和ISBN号.会议论文不是期刊,肯定没有期刊号。
会议论文是在会议等场合宣读首次发表的论文。会议每年一次或两年一次，展示方式有口头报告、海报展示或现场讨论。一般正式的学术交流会议都会出版会议论文集，这样发表的论文一般也会作为职称评定等考核内容。会议论文审稿周期较短，一般1-2周左右，甚至小型会议只需几天。
期刊论文是作者将研究成果以论文形式投到期刊上进行发表，与会议论文有实质的不同。不同期刊发行的频率从一月到一年不等。
好的学术期刊采用审稿人制度，一般情况下，编辑会根据论文方向，选择三个以上的审稿人，当三个审稿人意见有两个不同意录用时，基本上会拒稿。审稿人可以选择要求作者修改，这意味着可能有多个评审阶段，直到审稿人认可你的回复，当然这一过程中，其他审稿专家也会看到你的修改。
会议论文可以评职称。
会议论文的录用周期是比较短的，快则两个星期就收到录用通知了，关键是会议论文是否能受到认可，这是比较重要的。
其实很多会议论文都是可以用于评职称的，很多评委会也是认可会议论文的，但是重点在于看质量，质量越高的越容易被认可，其实会议论文跟主办方的关系不大，主要看论文的出版单位。
而会议的正规性，规格越高，那么学术研究的价值也越大，在学术领域的认可度也会更高。另外还需要注意论文本身的质量，需要查重，最好抄袭率控制在20%以内。论文的论点需要有一定前瞻性和创新性。
会议论文和期刊论文中，期刊论文含金量高。
会议论文是以会议方式提交到EI数据库，属于CA方式。期刊则属于JA方式。要说明的是，JA质量一般都比CA要高，不过JA的期刊EI每年都会更新，所以有可能你投的期刊，今年是EI，明年就不是了被踢了。
期刊论文和会议论文是不同的文献类型. 正式出版的期刊都有国际标准期刊号. 会议论文,要看会议主办单位,有一些学术会议,在会前出论文集,会后不再出版论文集；有一些学术会议,在会后正式出版论文集,具有出版社和ISBN号.会议论文不是期刊,肯定没有期刊号。
会议论文是在会议等场合宣读首次发表的论文。会议每年一次或两年一次，展示方式有口头报告、海报展示或现场讨论。一般正式的学术交流会议都会出版会议论文集，这样发表的论文一般也会作为职称评定等考核内容。会议论文审稿周期较短，一般1-2周左右，甚至小型会议只需几天。
期刊论文是作者将研究成果以论文形式投到期刊上进行发表，与会议论文有实质的不同。不同期刊发行的频率从一月到一年不等。
好的学术期刊采用审稿人制度，一般情况下，编辑会根据论文方向，选择三个以上的审稿人，当三个审稿人意见有两个不同意录用时，基本上会拒稿。审稿人可以选择要求作者修改，这意味着可能有多个评审阶段，直到审稿人认可你的回复，当然这一过程中，其他审稿专家也会看到你的修改。
会议刊和期刊论文的区别：
1、投稿对象不同
会议论文是针对某个学术会议而投稿的文章，而期刊论文是作者将研究成果以论文形式投到期刊上进行发表，所以两者有实质的不同。
2、发表不同
会议论文所投稿件由组委会评审决定是否录用，期刊论文是将论文投递给学术期刊，由期刊编辑部审核后告知是否录用。所以会议论文和期刊论文投稿与发表区别不同。会议论文录用后，可以选择参加会议或不参加会议，而期刊论文录用后只需等着出版即可。
3、论文性质不同
会议论文可是学年论文、毕业论文、学位论文、科技论文、成果论文等，也可是篇幅精简的报告。而期刊论文则是某学术领域或课题上的研究，在实验性和理论性及预测性上得出见解，也可是某领域上获得新进展的总结。
4、寄送形式不同
会议论文出版后会寄送论文集给作者（部分会议会将论文提交到国际期刊上发表，并寄送期刊）但是期刊论文出版后寄送的就只有期刊。
5、审稿周期不同
会议论文审稿周期较短，一般1-2周左右，甚至小型会议只需几天。期刊论文审核周期相对较慢，一般2-4个月左右，期刊论文审核周期视杂志社实际情况而定。
6、认可度区别
期刊论文对大家来说更为熟悉，它的受众比会议论文要广，也是目前应用范围最广的论文。国内毕业、保研、评职，均对期刊论文认可度较高。
而会议论文由于是在学术会议上宣读的文章，其属于公开发表的论文，认可度与学术会议的权威性成正相关，所以我们要谨慎选择学术会议。
汉斯出版社的都是正规的国际期刊，并被中国知网全文收录，学校和社会的认可度很高，期刊涵盖面也广，本科毕业基本是可以用的，如果不确定可以先向学校问清楚。
1. 国家级的, 任何地方都有说服力.2. 你如果跟教授说什么国家和核心, 他最大可能是听不懂, 然后怀疑其真实性. 你只要说国家级就好.3. 这里对各种科技杂志还是很看重的, 因为这代表了对科技的认可和尊重, 还有发表人对自己工作的严谨. 所以你根本不要提国内杂志的种种内幕或不同之处, 对你没好处. 只要按杂志的名称翻译过来说一说就可以了, 甚至你可以带上杂志给教授看. 这样给人的感觉也是你态度客观. 对你有好处.
这个国家是不会认可的，国家认可的是在国家新闻总署能查到的期刊，有国内刊号CN，国际刊号ISSN，双刊号齐全，还有邮发代号，出版后上数据库检索，这种国家才会认可的。从另外一个角度来看，发表期刊，期刊会对学术论文进行检测（检查抄袭率），审稿（初审、复审、终审），然后排版，印刷，出书。而百家号准确来说，是一个自媒体平台，并不是一个国家认证的学术平台。
可以用的，汉斯还行。
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
zxdasjk;ngtpa kot;kla mnsldknfkjSBGARi ouawejtryk'leakGJNDSBVhjxcblk;nbvcbnp'KJPdsvmsflugaWETHWAJRK[]DGZLL=PHN]ZDFLMNHPDSIOJYHNOIAEJRHFDUIZDVYXGTCVXJHB VKXnDBL'KVCNSPROJTGPURKH;LGKZFDNBKJFBHGAUISGRT8EW7WYSUT09GFIOSDJBKXHNCZJBVHJgbvASUYTFUREAYH9RQ0OJGKPHOFDBNLCVNKJZbVUJHsgadFUYAGHIEUWRTHQOTJE FBHuaESGFIU AEADHFSWAYRE8YWQJPAKPAOKFGSAKOF
有些国人永远抱着一副有色眼镜，觉得oa就是水。nc和sa不也是oa，两万多的版面费，很多高校发一篇至少奖励几十万。mdpi的期刊审稿又没放水，也不是不审稿直接给录用，每篇文章至少2-3个审稿人，很多一批文章初审就拒了。如果是34区期刊的话，没有什么不正规的地方。我觉得是一帮研究生不学无术，胡写了一篇想很快录用评奖学金甚至毕业，结果被拒稿，恼羞成怒来黑。oa在未来是大趋势，爱思唯尔和springer也在大力推出新oa，因为这帮水学生压根不敢投，也没得去黑。 mdpi的编辑我个人觉得是不行的，国内投稿一般是北京办事处的编辑在处理的，完全是按个人喜好来决定送不送审的。以我自己为例，之前投过1区，被拒，但至少是外审过的，被拒后的论文投了mdpi的water，隔天就被拒，只有编辑的意见，还是很模板的。 因为是oa期刊，发文量巨大，所以口碑上有问题。要说有问题，其他非oa的sci期刊未必没有问题，有问题的概率未必更低...只要有好的idea有科学意义，mdpi也是可以的 审稿正规，速度快。这个期刊处理稿件分为学术编辑和行政编辑，学术编辑的参与角色少，一个是论文审完了make decision，另一个是可以建议审稿人，绝大部分工作是不懂论文内容的行政编辑来做的，比如说实际邀请审稿人等。给这个出版社IF4+的期刊当过学术编辑，没啥参与感，不过倒是省事，也大大降低了发人情论文的可能性。但我个人喜好，在审mdpi 期刊的稿件时，对论文的novelty要求不太高，主要看内容的完整性。 审稿快，质量还行。但因为审稿快，对审稿慢的期刊不公平，所以口碑不好。三区当四区看。 还可以吧。当年实验室约稿，认为是OA，所以随便写了一篇投过去，结果一个星期就拒稿了！！毕竟>3的IF在那里，人家也是要脸面的呀。[机智][机智][机智] 后来认真挑了一个工作投过去，正常也是2.5左右的水平，他们审完，要求补点数据，哎，硬生生的提高到了3的水准才接收。。当然，这个工作如果直接投3.0的非OA的期刊，还是有点风险的。 水的不能再水，相同影响因子的话，根本达不到老牌期刊水平。再一个，发这个杂志的人，根本不会考虑学术声誉问题，大多是为了评职称，毕业，奖学金。一般场合下，都不好意思拿出来和别人分享。
mdpi的期刊审稿又没放水，也不是不审稿直接给录用，每篇文章至少2-3个审稿人，很多一批文章初审就拒了。
如果是34区期刊的话，没有什么不正规的地方。我觉得是一帮研究生不学无术，胡写了一篇想很快录用评奖学金甚至毕业，结果被拒稿，恼羞成怒来黑。oa在未来是大趋势，爱思唯尔和springer也在大力推出新oa，因为这帮水学生压根不敢投，也没得去黑。
局限性：MDPI旗下的个别刊物质量堪忧
MDPI目前出版了很多学术性刊物，有些刊物的确不错，比如Symmetry和Forests，但是有些最新被SCI收录的刊物非常差，表现在编辑处理稿件随意，审稿人队伍质量堪忧，进而影响这些刊物论文的学术性价值。
我举一个我同事投稿的例子。审稿人2基本上是在满嘴互喷，Comments基本都是bullshit（虽然给出的参考文献看似很专业，但是与我们的主题基本不相关）。审稿人1还是比较客观的，审稿人3没有认真看文章，是个菜鸟。