《等離子體物理報(bào)告》是一份專(zhuān)門(mén)研究等離子體物理的同行評(píng)議期刊。該雜志涵蓋了以下主題:高溫等離子體物理與基于磁約束和慣性約束的受控核聚變問(wèn)題有關(guān);宇宙等離子體物理，包括磁層等離子體、太陽(yáng)等離子體和恒星等離子體等;氣體放電等離子體和等離子體產(chǎn)生的激光和粒子束。該雜志還發(fā)表了有關(guān)等離子體電子學(xué)、等離子體輻射產(chǎn)生和等離子體診斷等相關(guān)主題的論文。與其他原創(chuàng)通訊一樣，該雜志也發(fā)表專(zhuān)題評(píng)論和會(huì)議記錄。同行評(píng)審等離子體物理報(bào)告是一份同行評(píng)議的期刊。我們使用雙盲同行評(píng)審格式。我們的審稿人團(tuán)隊(duì)包括55名審稿人，包括內(nèi)部審稿人和外部審稿人(70%)。2017年從提交到首次評(píng)審的平均周期為40天，從首次評(píng)審到驗(yàn)收的平均周期為30天。2017年投稿退稿率為40%。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(lái)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(méi)有被引用的作者,(2)任何已報(bào)道在以前的出版物和沒(méi)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)。

Plasma Physics Reports is a peer reviewed journal devoted to plasma physics. The journal covers the following topics: high-temperature plasma physics related to the problem of controlled nuclear fusion based on magnetic and inertial confinement; physics of cosmic plasma, including magnetosphere plasma, sun and stellar plasma, etc.; gas discharge plasma and plasma generated by laser and particle beams. The journal also publishes papers on such related topics as plasma electronics, generation of radiation in plasma, and plasma diagnostics. As well as other original communications, the journal publishes topical reviews and conference proceedings.PEER REVIEWPlasma Physics Reports is a peer reviewed journal. We use a double blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes 55 reviewers, both internal and external (70%). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 40 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 30 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 40%. 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.