博士发表一篇prl那是相当厉害了。
可以说所有获诺贝尔物理学奖的都是在PRL上发表论文。
CCF推荐分类：PR是B类；PRL是C类。一般，PR在行业里还是比较认可的。博士毕业，还是要发几篇像PR这样的期刊。
期刊性质：PR和PRL是一个Publisher，区别是PRL原本的意图是发表短少精炼、周期短的论文，而PR是复杂长篇、周期长的论文或文章。但逐渐的PR也开始发表短文章。
在PRL上发表而获得诺贝尔物理学奖者有史蒂芬·温伯格、阿瑟·伦纳德·肖洛、基普·索恩等。
1979年因弱电统一理论，史蒂芬·温伯格与格拉肖和萨拉姆分享当年诺贝尔物理学奖。1967年11月20日，史蒂芬·温伯格在物理评论快报（PRL）上发表的一篇标志性的论文：《轻子模型》（A Model of Leptons），为高能粒子物理学在20世纪后半叶的发展指明了方向。
1981年，阿瑟·伦纳德·肖洛获诺贝尔物理学奖，主要学术领域是激光的研究。肖洛曾放弃没有奖学金的工程学改学物理学专业，在哥伦比亚大学与Townes教授一起工作，在1958年与Townes教授一起写了一篇关于激光的论文在PRL上发表。
你可以在网上搜索关于pr副业的相关网站，以便投稿。你也可以在报纸、杂志或电台等媒体上投稿，以及在社交媒体上发布你的作品。
中科院分区：Pattern Recognition （PR）是 SCI，大小科都是二区；Pattern Recognition Letters （PRL）是SCIE，大科类三区，小科类要四区了。二者都不是TOP期刊。
CCF推荐分类：PR是B类；PRL是C类。一般，PR在行业里还是比较认可的。博士毕业，还是要发几篇像PR这样的期刊。
期刊性质：PR和PRL是一个Publisher，区别是PRL原本的意图是发表短少精炼、周期短的论文，而PR是复杂长篇、周期长的论文或文章。但逐渐的PR也开始发表短文章。
引文索引
SCI全称是Science Citation Index，是美国科学信息研究所（ Institute for Scientific Information，简称ISI）出版的一部世界著名的期刊文献检索工具，其出版形式包括印刷版期刊和光盘版及联机数据库，还发行了互联网上Web版数据库。SCI收录全世界出版的数、理、化、农、林、医、生命科学、天文、地理、环境、材料、工程技术等自然科学各学科的核心期刊约3500种。
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。
中科院分区：Pattern Recognition （PR）是 SCI，大小科都是二区；Pattern Recognition Letters （PRL）是 SCIE，大科类三区，小科类要四区了。二者都不是 TOP 期刊。CCF 推荐分类：PR 是 B 类；PRL 是 C 类。一般，PR 在行业里还是比较认可的。博士毕业，还是要发几篇像 PR 这样的期刊。17年的影响因子 Impact Factor：PR 是 4.582，从13年以来，一直以很快的速度上涨；PRL 是 1.995，也是在一直增长。期刊性质：PR 和 PRL 是一个 Publisher ，区别是 PRL 原本的意图是发表短少精炼、周期短的论文，而 PR 是复杂长篇、周期长的论文或文章。但逐渐的 PR 也开始发表短文章。对比来看， PRL 比上不足，比下有余，毕竟是 CCF C 类。
套用pr模板的具体步骤如下：
1、首先启动Premiere软件，选择新建一个PR视频剪辑项目，在新建项目窗口中设置该项目的名称、存储位置及相关属性。
2、然后在新建的PR项目中导入视频素材，将视频素材拖入时间轴中自动创建序列，视频素材置于时间轴视频轨道1上。
3、然后选择图形界面窗口，在图形中找到基本图形，在基本图形中就能看到有很多自带的模板了，有文字模板，MG动画模板和转场效果等。
4、然后在PR自带的模板中选择一个喜欢的文字特效模板，将其选中移动拖入视频轨道2上，等待模板加载与解析字体即可。
1、启动Premiere软件，选择创建一个新的PR视频剪辑项目，然后在新项目窗口中设置项目名称，存储位置和相关属性。
2、将视频资料导入到新创建的PR项目中，将视频资料拖到时间线中以自动创建序列，然后将视频资料放置在时间线视频轨道1上。
3、选择图形界面窗口，然后在图形中找到基本图形。在基本图形中，您可以看到有许多内置模板，包括文本模板，MG动画模板和过渡效果。
4、在PR自带的模板中选择一个喜欢的文字特效模板，将其选中移动拖入视频轨道2上，等待模板加载与解析字体。
5、文字特效模板加载与解析字体完成之后，就可以播放时间轴，查看模板效果，不过这是模板的效果，接下来进行模板的更改。
6、选中画面的中的文字特效模板，在基本图形的编辑中会出现相应的选项，先选择文字，出现对应文字属性，可以进行文字内容更改与属性更改操作；
7、在选择另一图层，也可更改对应参数。最终就将自带的模板改成需要的效果了。
转投是你投一个期刊它给你拒了但觉得你适合投它们同一出版社的另一个期刊，推荐你投，然后你投了就是转投，重新投是你被拒了，然后又找了个另一个期刊投
根据我对PR的使用经验，PR套用片头模版可以这样做：
2. 导入你的视频素材和片头模板。
3. 将片头模板拖放到序列面板中，并将其放置在视频素材的开头。
4. 双击片头模板，以打开它的编辑界面。
5. 根据你的需要，对片头模板进行调整，例如更改文本、颜色、字体等。
6. 确认修改后，关闭编辑界面。
7. 在序列面板中，右键单击片头模板图层，并选择“速度/持续时间”。
8. 在弹出的“速度/持续时间”窗口中，将持续时间设置为与你的视频素材长度相同或稍长一些。
9. 点击“确定”按钮，以应用持续时间更改。
10. 预览你的视频，以确保片头模板已正确应用。
11. 最后，导出视频
这个不需要和编辑过多的交流，只要把你写的论文寄给报社，编辑会通过邮件或电话和你联系的。
只要别发附件就行 因为编辑们每天都会受到很多邮件 一般带附件的会连看都不看就直接删除
1、首先，打开chemicalscience。2、其次，chemicalscience期刊没有统一的word模版。3、最后，直接按照作者指南的要求设置格式即可。
这个你在投稿的时候在邮件上写就可以了。现在论文投稿太普遍了，不需要特殊的说明。
投稿的大致流程是这样的（不同期刊、不同出版商略有不同）：按照要求把论文正文、cover letter和相关信息都放到期刊网站的一个投稿系统上。完成后，投稿状态显示逗Submitted to Editorial Office地或类似字样。投稿后，期刊编辑部会给通讯作者发email，通知签署版权协议，投稿状态可能会改为"Forms Awaiting Completion"或"Submissions Waiting for Author's Approval"，也可能不改，取决于不同期刊。完成后，状态改回逗Submitted to Editorial Office地或改为"Submissions Being Processed"。这个过程也就一两天就会完成。然后技术编辑会审阅论文格式，如果格式不对，打回修改。这个过程也不会很长，一周之内肯定能完成。通过技术编辑后，管学术的编辑先大概看一下，如果文章不符合期刊主题，或者文章实在太烂，会直接拒稿，但拒稿信措辞通常很婉转，类似于逗不是你不好，只是我们不合适地、逗你是个好人，肯定可以找到别人的地之类的。拒稿后状态会改成"Submissions with a Decision"或者"Manuscripts No Longer Under Consideration"。这个过程大概一周之内也能完成，所以你的文章如果投稿一周多后还没有消息，应该就是通过编辑这一关，送审了。我最快的一次，签署版权协议后不到24小时就被编辑拒稿，悲催啊。如果编辑觉得还可以，就会选择几个这个领域的同行（可能是你在投稿信息里推荐的，也可能不是，一般都是匿名评审，你不会知道审稿人是谁），发给他们审稿。审稿人完成审稿后会把意见发回给编辑。这个时候状态会维持"Submitted to Editorial Office"或"Submissions Being Processed"不变。这个过程短则几天，长则一年多，都有可能。不同期刊快慢不同。我之前的组里投稿，有的稿子两周就能完成初审这一步，有一篇这一步耗时13个月。网友在小木虫和上对每个期刊的审稿时间都有介绍，有时不是很准，但可以作为参考。编辑收到几个审稿人意见后，会综合考虑，决定文章是直接通过，还是大修(major revision)，还是小修(minor revision)，还是拒稿。如果需要修改，会在给通讯作者的email里写清楚deadline，如果不需要重新做大量试验的话，会给60天左右的修改时间。这个时候投稿状态会变成"Incomplete Revisions and Resubmissions"。修改完成提交到投稿系统，状态变成"Revisions Waiting for Author's Approval"或者"Revisions and Resubmissions Received by Editorial Office"。编辑收到修改稿，可以决定去留或者继续修改。如果编辑觉得不好决定，就会再次发给审稿人，这次的审稿人可能和之前的相同，也可能不同。这一步的时间一两天到几个月都有可能。投稿系统会重复显示之前的投稿状态。如果万事大吉，通讯作者会收到接收信，投稿系统状态会改成"Accepted Manuscripts"或者"Submissions with a Decision"。后面可能要签署一些协议，状态改成"Proof Ready for Review"，"Proof Comments Received"。一两天就搞定。签完协议后，工作人员会进行校对和排版，需要几天到几周时间。根据投稿时的选择，文章可能在未校对、排版前就可被订阅者看到（这时读者下载的论文pdf排版很难看），或者只在之后才能看到。校对排版后，出版社网站上可看到正式格式的全文。尽管这时读者下载的pdf文件排版已经正式了，但还没有正式刊号和页码。几周后，正式出版。这时网页上和读者下载的pdf文件中，已经带有正式刊号和页码了。
你好，大部分期刊的投稿状态如下，供参考，时间就要看各个期刊了，不同的期刊千差万别。1. Submitted to Journal 刚提交的状态2. Manuscript received by Editorial Office 就是你的文章到了编辑手里了，证明投稿成功3. With editor如果在投稿的时候没有要求选择编辑，就先到主编那，主编会分派给别的编辑。这当中就会有另两个状态：3.1. Awaiting Editor Assignment指派责任编辑 Editor assigned是把你的文章分给一个编辑处理了。3.2. Editor Declined Invitation 也可能编辑会拒绝邀请，这就需要重新指定编辑3.3. technical check in progress 检查你的文章符不符合期刊投稿要求4.编辑接手处理后也会有2种状态4.1. Decision Letter Being Prepared 就是编辑没找审稿人就自己决定了，那根据一般经验，对学生来说估计会挂了 1）英文太差，编辑让修改。 2）内容太差，要拒了。除非大牛们直接被接收。4.2. Reviewer(s) invited 找到审稿人了，就开始审稿5. Under review这应该是一个漫长的等待。当然前面各步骤也可能很慢的，要看编辑的处理情况。如果被邀请审稿人不想审，就会decline，编辑会重新邀请别的审稿人。6. Required Reviews Completed审稿人的意见已上传，审稿结束，等待编辑决定7. uating Recommendation评估审稿人的意见，随后你将收到编辑给你的decision8. Minor revision/Major revision这个时候可以稍微庆祝一下了，问题不大了，因为有修改就有可能。具体怎么改就不多说了，谦虚谨慎是不可少的。9. Revision Submitted to Journal又开始了一个循环。10. Accepted 恭喜了11. Transfer copyright form 签版权协议12. uncorrected proof 等待你校对样稿13. In Press, Corrected Proof 文章在印刷中，且该清样已经过作者校对14. Manuscript Sent to Production 排版15 in production 出版中
SCI论文审稿流程及状态解读对于初次投稿的作者，审稿流程以及审稿状态是其主要关注的，了解审稿流程，不仅可以掌握自己稿件的随时状态，以及状态背后所隐藏的信息，进而做到心中有数，今天为大家分享一篇SCI论文审稿流程的详细介绍。参与审稿的人：（1）Editor in Chief（EIC），主编，对稿件有最终决定权。（2）ADM- (可能是) Administrator，协助主编日常工作。（3）Associated Editor（AE）副编辑，其会在审稿人（reviewers）意见的基础上对文章作个综合评价后，给主编一个recommendation。一般主编都会按照AE的意见写最终的decision letter。（4）Reviewer--审稿人，对你的文章进行审稿，并将审稿意见提交给AE。Articlesubmitted后（即论文提交后）：1、awaiting admin.procession一般3－4天后就会安排主编。2、awaiting reviewerassignment 等待指定审稿人。主编在选择审稿人，等待审稿人回复是否同意审稿。一般在一周以内。看审稿人回复速度。3、awaiting reviewerscores 等待审稿人审稿意见。一般会要求审稿人三周内给审稿意见。但是审稿人觉得时间不够，可以写信给主编要求延长审稿期限。这个时间长短要取决于审稿人是否有空看你的文章，还要看他是否守时。一般三周左右。4、awaiting AEassignment 等待AE的指派。编辑部在选择/联系AE。一般1－3天左右。5、awaiting AErecommendation 等待AE的推荐。有些杂志要求AE三周内给结果。基本都是期限的最后一两天才给结果。6、awaiting EICdecision －激动人心的时刻。等待主编的决定。一般3－4天。EIC的最终决定也分以下几种情况：1－Accept2－accept after minorrevision(withour re-review不需要再送审)3－reconsiderationafter major revision.(要再送审，即要再经过审稿流程3－6)4－reject and resubmit(论文现在状态不能接受，但可以修改后重新再投。要重新经过审稿流程1－6)5－reject （没有希望了，尽快改投其它期刊)很多作者在投稿后，对自己论文的后续审稿状态不是很了解，心里一直坎坷不安，其实，熟悉审稿流程及各状态情况，可以消除您的不安，也在出现不希望看到的结果后，能及时转变投稿方向，这对于作者是非常必要的。参考资料：查尔斯沃思论文润色
审核中 审核通过，退稿，需要修改。