中文简介

《化工理论基础》是一本综合性刊物，涵盖了化工理论和应用研究的各个方面，包括运输现象、表面现象、混合物分离过程、化学反应器设计的理论和方法、组合过程和多功能反应器、流体力学热学、扩散、化学工艺和仪器、膜工艺和反应器、生物技术、分散的系统、纳米技术、过程强化、信息建模与分析、节约能源和资源的过程、清洁环境的工艺和技术。《化学工程理论基础》是一本同行评议的期刊。我们使用单盲同行评审格式。我们的审查小组包括来自11个国家的87名内部和外部审查员（63%）。2017年从提交到第一次决定的平均时间为29天，从第一次决定到接受的平均时间为60天。2017年提交稿件不合格率为40%。接受发表文章的最后决定由总编辑和编委会作出。受邀审稿人如因利益冲突，认为不合格或不能审稿，应及时通知编辑，拒绝邀请。审稿人应以合理、合理的方式清楚地陈述自己的观点，以便作者可以利用审稿人的论点来改进手稿。必须避免对作者的个人批评。审稿人应在审稿中指出：（1）作者未引用的任何相关出版作品；（2）以前出版物中报道的任何内容，但未给出适当的参考或引用；（3）任何实质性相似或重叠与其他手稿(发表或未发表)的个人知识。

投稿网址：http://www.springer.com/chemistry/industrial+chemistry+and+chemical+engineering/journal/11236

英文简介

Theoretical Foundations of Chemical Engineering is a comprehensive journal covering all aspects of theoretical and applied research in chemical engineering, including transport phenomena; surface phenomena; processes of mixture separation; theory and methods of chemical reactor design; combined processes and multifunctional reactors; hydromechanic, thermal, diffusion, and chemical processes and apparatus, membrane processes and reactors; biotechnology; dispersed systems; nanotechnologies; process intensification; information modeling and analysis; energy- and resource-saving processes; environmentally clean processes and technologies.Theoretical Foundations of Chemical Engineering is a peer reviewed journal. We use a single blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes 87 reviewers, both internal and external (63%), from 11 countries. The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 29 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 60 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 40%. The final decision on the acceptance of an article for publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief and 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appropriate reference or citation, (iii) any substantial similarity or overlap with any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.