《微生物學(xué)》是一本國(guó)際同行評(píng)議期刊，涵蓋了基礎(chǔ)微生物學(xué)和應(yīng)用微生物學(xué)領(lǐng)域的廣泛?jiǎn)栴}。該雜志發(fā)表實(shí)驗(yàn)和理論論文，對(duì)微生物科學(xué)不同領(lǐng)域的現(xiàn)代趨勢(shì)進(jìn)行評(píng)論，并對(duì)不尋常的觀察進(jìn)行簡(jiǎn)短的描述。該雜志歡迎所有國(guó)家的英文或俄文手稿。同行評(píng)審微生物學(xué)是一本同行評(píng)議的雜志。我們使用單一的盲同行評(píng)審格式。我們的審稿人團(tuán)隊(duì)包括超過(guò)40名審稿人，包括內(nèi)部審稿人和外部審稿人(85%)。2017年從提交到首次評(píng)審的平均周期為60天，從首次評(píng)審到驗(yàn)收的平均周期為180天。2017年投稿退稿率為46%。接受發(fā)表的文章由總編作出最后決定。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)。

Microbiology is an is an international peer reviewed journal that covers a wide range of problems in the areas of fundamental and applied microbiology. The journal publishes experimental and theoretical papers, reviews on modern trends in different fields of microbiological science, and short communications with descriptions of unusual observations. The journal welcomes manuscripts from all countries in the English or Russian language.PEER REVIEWMicrobiology is a peer reviewed journal. We use a single blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes over 40 reviewers, both internal and external (85%). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 60 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 180 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 46%. The final decision on the acceptance of an article for publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief.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appropriate reference or citation, (ii) any substantial similarity or overlap with any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.