Scientific Reports在国内的认可度怎么样？

我的感觉，对于工程领域，审稿很严。我做的是一个“在振动台上测试了典型的 HSR 桥梁，以评估在高强度地震（例如最大考虑地震 (MCE)）中的抗震性能”的研究。审稿意见有54条。大家看看：
Reviewer Comments:
Reviewer 1
The
manuscript under consideration presents an investigate on the seismic
performance of typical RERSCSS concrete pier used in HSRB with varying
seismic strength and design parameters through a series of shaking table
tests.
The authors carried out a series of
shaking table tests on RERSCSS concrete piers (M1-M9). The similarity
relation between the test model and prototype is given based on
dimensional analysis. Displacement, acceleration and strain sensors were
deployed for model response acquisition.
The following points should be addressed before it can be considered for publication.
The analyses (part 3) should be further organized and underscored. The following issues require careful revision:
[1] The description of experimental phenomena should be supported by experimental photographs, such as part 3.1.
[2]
The pictures given in the manuscript should be analyzed as necessary
rather than simply presented to the reader, such as Fig 11.
[3]
Lines 351-358. The authors discussed the acceleration growth rates.
But the manuscript lacks the necessary description of the acceleration
growth rates. Only the peak acceleration of the top is given (Fig 12),
but the bottom is missing. This is very confusing.
[4] The analysis of part 3.4 is meaningless. The difference in stiffness between the two directions is obvious.
[5]
 Fig 14 is confusing. What’s the meaning of the pink line and the
shadow? The authors discussed the influence of longitudinal
reinforcement rate on the energy dissipation performance according to
M2, M3 and M7. While, they differ not only in factor of longitudinal
reinforcement rate, but also in factor of axial load ratio and
volumetric stirrup ratio. This should be further elaborated.
[6]
2. Some pictures in the article should be redesigned. Fig. 9, 14, 15,
19. What the authors want to reflect through the picture is not clear.
[7] 3. There is some overlap between the third part and the fourth part, please rearrange the structure of the article.
Reviewer 2
The
authors present an interesting experimental study to investigate the
seismic performance of typical high-speed rail (HSR) round-ended
rectangular-shaped cross-section solid (RERSCSS) concrete piers by
shaking table tests. Several piers design parameters were taking into
account. Seismic performance of 9 pier specimens was assessed by
analyzing the dynamic behavior from several points of view. The authors
collected a large variety of measurement data and the experimental study
was quite rich and complete. Nonetheless, the manuscript does not show
any theoretical or numerical model that would have helped the
comprehension of the results. The organization of the manuscript should
be improved. Some parts of the text, as well as some tables and figures,
are useless repetitions that do not add to the comprehension of the
study. The overall manuscript should be a little more concise. Some
figures do not match their captions and should be reorganized. Some
revision of the English is needed. Some specific comments are in the
following:
[8] Page 7, line 119. Please, replace “…the actual results…” with “…the currently available results of…”
[9]
Page 7, lines 121-123. Here some papers by the earthquake researchers
who found such results should be added to the references, for
completeness.
[10] Page 7, lines 125-130. Here
the authors make reference to the risk of building collapse and related
codes and practices in the US. Given that the authors are studying
Chinese infrastructures, please, explicitly explain the reasons of such
reference to the American context.
[11] Page
8, lines 131-132. This sentence makes no sense. Please improve the
English and reformulate this sentence. Do the authors mean that “Usually
concrete piers are characterized by quite different cross-section sizes
in the two horizontal directions, forming a wall pier”?
[12]
Page 8, lines 136-137. The authors state that the experimental research
on the seismic performance of HSR circular end concrete piers is still
insufficient. Please, provide some reasons why it is still insufficient.
[13]
Page 9, line 171. Please, explain what “the seismic fortification
intensity of the 8-degree zone” is. International readers may not be
familiar with the Chinese code…
[14] Page 9,
line 172-173. Please, replace 0.30g with 0.45g. Explicitly explain why
the study focused on the three seismic intensity levels 0.15g, 0.20g,
and 0.32g (corresponding to 0.45g, 0.60g, and 0.96g of shaking table
test PGAs). If the reason is that the utilized shaking table cannot
perform higher levels of PGA, please, state it explicitly for
transparency. However, this part should be better moved to section 2.7
‘Input motion and seismic hazard levels’ for better manuscript
organization and readability.
[15] Page 9, line 174. Please, replace “Code” with “Chinese code”.
[16]
Table 1 should be better designed in order to be more readable. The
second column is not easily comprehensible, values should be better
spaced. Why 7-degree zone and 8-degree zone columns have double values?
While 9-degree zone has only a single value?
[17] Figure 3. This figure does not match its caption. Please check this figure!
[18]
Table 2. According to this reviewer, the Table 2 is useless. All the
design factors and variables here illustrated are better shown in Table
3. It seems that Table 2 is redundant and does not add to the
comprehension of the study.
[19] Page 13,
lines 203-205. Notes to Table 2 should be added to Table 3. Please,
check D values for pier models, they are probably in inverted order.
[20] Figure 4. This figure does not match its caption. Please check this figure!
[21]
Table 4. Similitude parameters related to material properties can be
hardily achieved. Please, explicitly explain how you achieved, and
checked, the scaled density values for reinforced concrete.
[22] Page 16, line 240. Please, replace “Kn” with “kN”.
[23] Page 17, line 254. Please, replace “represent” with “reproduce”.
[24] Page 17, line 255. Please, replace “reappear” with “represent”.
[25]
Figure 7. This figure is quite simplistic and incomplete. Where are the
sensors set at the bottom of piers? Please add in a new figure a few
photos of sensors installation setup to let readers better understand
the measurements that were carried out.
[26]
Page 18, lines 266-268. Explicitly explain the reason why you choose
this specific earthquake for shaking table motions… it would make more
sense to choose an earthquake recorded in China, given that the study
focused on Chinese infrastructures…
[27] Page
18, lines 269. Before “Three…” the authors should explicitly state that
ST tests are one-directional and that the vertical component was
neglected, adding the reasons of this choice. Moreover, they should
explicitly state which horizontal direction (i.e. N or E?) of the
recorded earthquake they chose to be used for the ST tests, and why.
[28]
Figure 9. The order of graphs in this figure might be confusing.
Please, consider reorder the graphs as a), c), d), b) clockwise.
Moreover, in this reviewer’s opinion, Fourier spectrum would be more
readable in linear scale of both axes (for frequencies use range 0-30 Hz
or similar).
[29] Section 3 ‘Test results
and analyses’ and 4 ‘Experimental discussion’ should be reformulated. In
the present form they are a bit confusing and repetitive.
[30]
Page 22, lines 320-322. Here the English is not good and the sentence
in not comprehensible. Please, reformulate the sentence.
[31]
Page 22, lines 322-323. The crack pattern description is too short.
Please, provide a wider description of cracks and add some descriptive
photos.
[32] Page 23, lines 332-343. Please,
specify which specimen is considered here. This reviewer suggests moving
Figure 17 and related text here. The overall section 3.2 should be
better reformulated.
[33] Section 3.3
‘Acceleration responses’ and 4.2 ‘Effect of axial load ratio on
acceleration response’ should be reformulated. In the present form they
are a bit confusing and repetitive. For example, acceleration growth
rate and acceleration increase rate are the same? Please, use one
nomenclature and define it the first time it appears in the text.
[34]
Figure 11. According to this reviewer, the photos embedded in the
graphs are very bad and not readable. It is suggested to put them apart
in a different figure with a proper caption describing what such photos
are about. Furthermore, in graph b) at 0.60g labels are in Chinese.
Finally, in the caption x and y directions seem inverted…
[35] Page 25, lines 353-358. These lines seem to describe the results shown in Figure 18 and not the ones in Figure 12…
[36] Figure 12. For better readability, please, consider increasing the spacing between each bar and related acceleration value.
[37]
Page 27, lines 365-366. Check the statement “its top moved more in the
cross-bridge direction than it did in its cross-bridge direction”...
[38] Figure 14. Legend and related lines in the graphs are not clear…
[39] Page 29, line 384. Please check section numbering 4.6…
[40] Page 30, line 391. Delete “significant”.
[41] Page 30, line 400. Define “hoop ratio”...
[42] Page 31, line 409. Replace “Fig.Fig.” with “Fig.”.
[43] Page 33, lines 435-439. These lines seem to describe the results shown in Figure 12, if so make reference to Figure 12 …
[44] Page 33, line 439. Delete “are the absolute weights of the two samples”. Possible typo.
[45] Page 34, line 444. Replace “a bit” with “ a little”.
[46] Figure 19. Graphs a) and b) are the same as in Figure 11. Useless repetition. Further comments are the same as in Figure 9…
[47] Page 36, lines 484-487. Please, check repetitions of “cross-bridge direction”…
[48] Page 37, line 496. Consider deleting “…seismic simulation…”. Useless repetition.
[49] Page 37, line 499. Consider replacing “…substantial…” with ”… severe…”.
[50] Page 37, line 503. Consider replacing “…visible …” with ”… significant…”.
[51] Page 37, lines 507-508. Consider deleting “For this reason,…”.
[52]
Page 37, lines 509-510. According to this reviewer, the sentence “which
means that the pier is less vulnerable to damage in the y-direction” is
controversial, and should be eliminated or better justified. In fact,
seismic vulnerability depends on the considered seismic input spectrum…
[53]
Page 38, lines 513-514. Consider replacing “… bigger than the
displacement in the bridge's cross-sectional direction” with “… bigger
in the cis-bridge direction than in the bridge's cross-sectional
direction”.
[54] Page 38, lines 514-517. The
final sentence of 5 Conclusions is not comprehensible, please,
reformulate it in a better English.

Scientific Reports 是 Natrure 旗下的综合性科学期刊，2012年第一次影响因子为2.9。文章强调“技术”上的先进，但“无需具有重大科研意义”，所以审稿要求低于Nature的其他刊物，投稿者一般都是投Nature系列刊物被拒稿后转投的，所以文章水平还是比较高的，但是由于是新刊物，且发表文章数量过多，因此造成影响因子偏低。

该期刊目前在国内物理界还是受到广泛认可的,但是如果唯影响因子论的老板或单位可能就看不上了.根据一般的投稿经验,期刊审稿时间在1个月左右,其审稿难度远高于同影响因子的期刊,功利的说,除非单位特别认可,否则不建议投稿. 

Scientific Reports —出版业的一个新时代

Scientific Reports 是来自 Nature 杂志出版者的一个发表原始研究工作的刊物，在线出版，公开访问，内容涉及自然科学所有领域。

托管在 nature.com（该网站是由Springer Nature出版的80多种刊物的共同门户，每月全球有数百万科学家访问）上， Scientific Reports 是任何人都可以公开访问的，发表在技术上可靠的、各领域内的专业人员感兴趣的原始研究论文，其相关内容的访问不受任何限制。

人们对其的认知比较弱，没有PNAS强。

PNAS创刊100多周年,背后是美国国家科学院,在每年总引用量仅次于Nature,高于Science。而scientific report的水准现在基本和APS的PR（A-E）系列持平,算不上一线期刊,拍马也赶不上PNAS.唯一有可能冲击PNAS是的是Nat.Comm。

Scientific Reports”是Nature Publishing Group (NPG)出版的一份开放存取的在线期刊，SCIE收录。2013年的IF为5.078。

Nature和science在形式上有
它们的相同性。比如科技论文基本以3种形式出现：(1)学术论文：《Nature》：
Articale；《Science》：Research articale；(2)研究报道：《Nature》：
Letter;《Science》：Report;(3)通讯：《Nature》:Correspondence；《
Science》：Letter。研究文章较长，一般可在5—7页左右。研究报道一般为2—4
页，通讯一般不超过1页。但两刊的一个重要差别是《Science》允许参考文献中在
一个参考文献号下列出一个以上的文献，同时也允许在参考文献下加入简要注解说
明等。这2点在《Nature》中都是不允许的。因此，在同一类文章形式中，《
Science》提供了较大的空间。———摘自《Science与Nature杂志详解》http://blog.sina.cn/dpool/blog/s/blog_6d4da4870100nzzi.html?vt=4