Steel in Translation

ISSN: 0967-0912 (Print) 1935-0988 (Online)

Description

The industrial engineering journal Steel in Translation covers theoretical and applied problems of ferrous metallurgy. It presents material translated from the two leading Russian ferrous metallurgical journals – Stal" and Izvestia VUZ Chernaya Metallurgiya – reflecting the state of iron- and steelmaking in the former Soviet Union. Steelmakers and equipment suppliers worldwide regard Steel in Translation as a cost-effective means of monitoring progress and assessing opportunity in a marketplace that now invites participation from the West. Coverage ranges wide, including such topics as Blast furnaces; Steelmaking; Cast iron; Metal science, physics, and heat treatment; Electrical metallurgy of steel and ferroalloys; New metallic materials and processes; Metal working, rolling, pipe and tube production; Casting; Automation of processes and plant equipment; Industrial economics; Resource conservation; Ecology and industrial waste recycling; and Physical chemistry and theory of metallurgical processes.

PEER REVIEW

The journal represents a selection of translated materials from two Russian ferrous metallurgical journals: Stal’ and Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii. Chernaya Metallurgiya.

Stal’ is a peer reviewed journal. We use a single blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes 12 reviewers, both internal and external (30%). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 30 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.

Izvestiya VUZ. Chernaya Metallurgiya is a peer reviewed journal. We use a single blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes over 100 reviewers, both internal and external (72%). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 2 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 115 days. The final decision on the acceptance of an article for publication is made by the Editor–in-Chief and the Peer Reviewing.

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.

Browse Volumes & Issues