光學(xué)與光譜學(xué)(Optika i spektroskopiya)成立于1956年，在從無線電波到x射線的整個(gè)波長(zhǎng)范圍內(nèi)，在現(xiàn)代光學(xué)和光譜學(xué)的各個(gè)領(lǐng)域發(fā)表原創(chuàng)和評(píng)論論文。主題包括原子、分子和凝聚態(tài)的理論和實(shí)驗(yàn)光譜學(xué)、激光和激光輻射與物質(zhì)的相互作用、物理和幾何光學(xué)、全息術(shù)以及光學(xué)儀器制作的物理原理。同行評(píng)審《光學(xué)與光譜學(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6個(gè)國(guó)家(俄羅斯、以色列、法國(guó)、美國(guó)、加拿大、波蘭)的98名國(guó)內(nèi)外評(píng)審人員(91%)。2017年從提交到首次評(píng)審的平均周期為3天，從首次評(píng)審到驗(yàn)收的平均周期為15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)。

Optics and Spectroscopy (Optika i spektroskopiya), founded in 1956, presents original and review papers in various fields of modern optics and spectroscopy in the entire wavelength range from radio waves to X-rays. Topics covered include problems of theoretical and experimental spectroscopy of atoms, molecules, and condensed state, lasers and the interaction of laser radiation with matter, physical and geometrical optics, holography, and physical principles of optical instrument making.PEER REVIEWOptics and Spectroscopy is a peer reviewed journal. We use a single blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes 98 reviewers, both internal and external (91%), from 6 countries (Russia, Israel, France, USA, Canada, Poland). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 3 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 15 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appropriate reference or citation, (ii) any substantial similarity or overlap with any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.