TECHNICAL PHYSICS LETTERS

《技术物理快报》是一本与《技术物理》杂志为伴的杂志，提供理论和实验物理的快速发展和潜在的技术应用。最近的重点包括许多关于气体激光器和半导体激光的论文，以及许多关于高温超导的报告。在《技术物理学》杂志上看到的等离子体物理学的优秀报道，也在这里展示了在所有可能的技术应用领域的理论和实验工作的快速发展。主题包括基础物理和应用物理;等离子体物理;固体物理;物理电子学;加速器;微波电子设备;全息术。同行评审《技术物理快报》是一本同行评议的期刊。我们使用单一的盲同行评审格式。我们的审稿人团队包括来自9个国家的内外部审稿人580余人(95%)。2017年从提交到首次评审的平均周期为7天，从首次评审到验收的平均周期为21天。2017年投稿退稿率为32%。接受发表文章的最终决定由编辑委员会作出。被邀请的审稿人因利益冲突，认为不符合审稿条件或者不能审稿的，应当及时通知审稿人，并予以拒绝。审稿人应以一种合理合理的方式清晰地阐述自己的观点，这样作者才能利用审稿人的观点来完善稿件。必须避免对作者的个人批评。评论者应该显示发表的一篇评论(我)任何相关的工作没有被引用的作者,(2)任何已报道在以前的出版物和没有适当的参考或引用,(2)任何实质性相似或重叠与其他手稿(发表或未发表)的个人知识。

Technical Physics Letters is a companion journal to Technical Physics and offers rapid publication of developments in theoretical and experimental physics with potential technological applications. Recent emphasis has included many papers on gas lasers and on lasing in semiconductors, as well as many reports on high Tc superconductivity. The excellent coverage of plasma physics seen in the parent journal, Technical Physics, is also present here with quick communication of developments in theoretical and experimental work in all fields with probable technical applications. Topics covered are basic and applied physics; plasma physics; solid state physics; physical electronics; accelerators; microwave electron devices; holography.PEER REVIEWTechnical Physics Letters is a peer reviewed journal. We use a single blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes over 580 reviewers, both internal and external (95%), from 9 countries. The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 7 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 21 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 32%. 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appropriate reference or citation, (ii) any substantial similarity or overlap with any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.