《固體物理學(xué)》(Physics of The Solid State)雜志展示了俄羅斯科學(xué)院(Russian Academy of Sciences)和其他著名機(jī)構(gòu)凝聚態(tài)物理學(xué)領(lǐng)域的頂尖研究人員的最新成果。涵蓋固態(tài)物理的所有領(lǐng)域，包括固態(tài)光學(xué)、固態(tài)聲學(xué)、電子和振動(dòng)光譜、相變、鐵電、磁性和超導(dǎo)性。該雜志還介紹了固態(tài)物理學(xué)中最重要問題的評(píng)論論文。同行評(píng)審《固體物理學(xué)》是一本同行評(píng)議的期刊。我們使用單一的盲同行評(píng)審格式。我們的評(píng)審團(tuán)隊(duì)包括來自10個(gè)國(guó)家(阿塞拜疆、白俄羅斯、捷克共和國(guó)、愛沙尼亞、法國(guó)、德國(guó)、摩爾多瓦、俄羅斯、烏克蘭、美國(guó))的150多名國(guó)內(nèi)外評(píng)審人員(50%)。2017年從提交到首次評(píng)審的平均周期為30天，從首次評(píng)審到驗(yàn)收的平均周期為10天。接受發(fā)表文章的最終決定由編輯委員會(huì)作出。被邀請(qǐng)的審稿人因利益沖突，認(rèn)為不符合審稿條件或者不能審稿的，應(yīng)當(dāng)及時(shí)通知審稿人，并予以拒絕。審稿人應(yīng)以一種合理合理的方式清晰地闡述自己的觀點(diǎn)，這樣作者才能利用審稿人的觀點(diǎn)來完善稿件。必須避免對(duì)作者的個(gè)人批評(píng)。評(píng)論者應(yīng)該顯示發(fā)表的一篇評(píng)論(我)任何相關(guān)的工作沒有被引用的作者,(2)任何已報(bào)道在以前的出版物和沒有適當(dāng)?shù)膮⒖蓟蛞?(2)任何實(shí)質(zhì)性相似或重疊與其他手稿(發(fā)表或未發(fā)表)的個(gè)人知識(shí)。

The journal Physics of the Solid State presents the latest results from Russia’s leading researchers in condensed matter physics at the Russian Academy of Sciences and other prestigious institutions. Coverage includes all areas of solid state physics including solid state optics, solid state acoustics, electronic and vibrational spectra, phase transition, ferroelectricity, magnetism, and superconductivity. The journal also presents review papers on the most important problems in solid state physics.PEER REVIEWPhysics of the Solid State is a peer reviewed journal. We use a single blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes over 150 reviewers, both internal and external (50%), from 10 countries (Azerbaijan, Belarus, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine, USA). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 30 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 10 days. 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.