《結(jié)晶學(xué)報(bào)告》是一本發(fā)表原創(chuàng)文章的期刊，內(nèi)容包括：簡(jiǎn)短的通訊，綜述結(jié)晶學(xué)的各個(gè)方面：X射線、電子和中子的衍射和散射，無機(jī)和有機(jī)物質(zhì)（包括蛋白質(zhì)和其他生物物質(zhì)）的晶體結(jié)構(gòu)測(cè)定，紫外-可見光譜和紅外光譜。光學(xué)顯微鏡；晶體的生長(zhǎng)、不完全結(jié)構(gòu)和物理性質(zhì)；薄膜、液晶、納米材料、部分無序系統(tǒng)和研究方法。同行評(píng)議結(jié)晶學(xué)報(bào)告是同行評(píng)審的期刊。我們使用單盲同行評(píng)審格式。我們的評(píng)審團(tuán)隊(duì)包括20多名評(píng)審員，包括內(nèi)部和外部評(píng)審員（95%）。2017年從提交到第一次決定的平均期限為20天，從第一次決定到接受的平均期限為30天。2017年提交稿件不合格率為20%。接受發(fā)表文章的最后決定由編輯委員會(huì)作出。受邀審稿人因利益沖突，認(rèn)為審稿不合格或者不能審稿的，應(yīng)當(dāng)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)。

Crystallography Reports is a journal that publishes original articles short communications, and reviews on various aspects of crystallography: diffraction and scattering of X-rays, electrons, and neutrons, determination of crystal structure of inorganic and organic substances, including proteins and other biological substances; UV-VIS and IR spectroscopy; growth, imperfect structure and physical properties of crystals; thin films, liquid crystals, nanomaterials, partially disordered systems, and the methods of studies.PEER REVIEWCrystallography Reports is a peer reviewed journal. We use a single blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes over 20 reviewers, both internal and external (95%). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 20 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 30 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 20%. 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appropriate reference or citation, (iii) any substantial similarity or overlap with any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.