物理化學(xué)論文是一本由俄語(yǔ)版文章英文譯本組成的期刊，該文以俄語(yǔ)發(fā)表在科學(xué)院報(bào)告的物理化學(xué)部分。該雜志的目標(biāo)是發(fā)表今天在俄羅斯或與俄羅斯作家合作進(jìn)行的最重要的物理化學(xué)新研究。該雜志只接受俄羅斯代理科學(xué)院俄羅斯或外國(guó)成員提交或推薦的俄語(yǔ)文章。該期刊不接受英文直接提交。同行評(píng)議物理化學(xué)論文是一本同行評(píng)議的雜志。我們使用開(kāi)放/單盲/雙盲同行評(píng)審格式。我們的評(píng)審團(tuán)隊(duì)包括160多名內(nèi)部和外部評(píng)審員（70%）。2017年從提交到第一次決定的平均時(shí)間為3天，從第一次決定到接受的平均時(shí)間為30天。2017年提交稿件不合格率為5%。接受發(fā)表文章的最后決定由編輯委員會(huì)作出。受邀審稿人如因利益沖突，認(rèn)為不合格或不能審稿，應(yīng)及時(shí)通知編輯，拒絕邀請(qǐng)。審稿人應(yīng)以合理、合理的方式清楚地陳述自己的觀點(diǎn)，以便作者可以利用審稿人的論點(diǎn)來(lái)改進(jìn)手稿。必須避免對(duì)作者的個(gè)人批評(píng)。審稿人應(yīng)在審稿中指出：（1）作者未引用的任何相關(guān)出版作品；（2）以前出版物中報(bào)道的任何內(nèi)容，但未給出適當(dāng)?shù)膮⒖蓟蛞茫唬?）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)。

Doklady Physical Chemistry is a journal consisting of English translations of articles published in Russian on physical chemistry in the physical chemistry sections of Doklady Akademii Nauk. The journal's goal is to publish the most significant new research in physical chemistry carried out in Russia today or in collaboration with Russian authors. The journal accepts only articles in the Russian language that are submitted or recommended by acting Russian or foreign members of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The journal does not accept direct submissions in English.PEER REVIEWDoklady Physical Chemistry is a peer reviewed journal. We use open/single blind/double blind peer review formats. Our team of reviewers includes over 160 reviewers, both internal and external (70%). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 3 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 30 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 5%. 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, (iii) any substantial similarity or overlap with any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.