写的论文都会发表吗

写的论文都会发表吗

如果你的论文做的特别好的话，老师，可能会给你发到期刊上，这要看你自己本身的论文水平

学术论文被接受了，不一定就发表说明你这个学术论文还是有一定的学术价值的，如果需要发表可能需要你再修改。

不需要！也不会上知网！本科毕业论文在毕业答辩后，会由学校进行归档保存，不会拿去发表，目前出台了抽查政策，所以要注意下不要涉及学术不端行为。硕博毕业论文，很多在毕业后会被学校上传知网，但不是全部，知网上是优秀硕博毕业论文库，有些是全部上传，有些则是选一部分上传，极个别不会传上去。至于本科毕业论文毕业后要不要发表一方面看你个人意愿和个人选择，看有没有用另一方面也是最重要的，要看文章内容有没有涉及到学校的重要利益，虽然每年有很多人把本科毕业论文在毕业后拿去找期刊发表，学校也没有管，但这不意味着学校没有权力追责，毕业论文应该属于个人与学校共同拥有的知识产权，如果不涉及侵犯到学校的利益，那学校也不会去追究，但如果涉及到一些学校拥有的技术数据，你拿去发表的时候单位没有写毕业院校，实际上会造成不同单位知识产权的纠纷。

毕业论文主要是从总体上考查学生学习所达到的学业水平，不一定要公开发表。如果论文具有较高的学术水准，可以征求辅导老师的意见，能否达到在专业刊物发表的标准。

piers的论文都会发表吗

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。

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 1The 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 2The 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.

中文全角，英文半角。

期刊类

【格式】[序号]作者.篇名[J].刊名，出版年份，卷号（期号）：起止页码.

【举例】

[1]王海粟.浅议会计信息披露模式[J].财政研究，2004，21(1)：56-58.

[2]夏鲁惠.高等学校毕业论文教学情况调研报告[J].高等理科教育，2004(1)：46-52.

[3]Heider，E.R.&D.C.Oliver.Thestructureofcolorspaceinnamingandmemoryoftwolanguages[J].ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearch，1999，(3)：62–67.

有 3 个或超过 3 个单词、短语或完整的句子并列，需要 and 或 or 将其连接成句。

举例逗号就用于替代这里的 and 或 or。

示例1:(R) The changes in river width as a function of flow rate , longitudinal sloping , and concavityare examined．

示例2:(R) The correlation between catchment area and flow width were fitted with linear function，power function , exponential function , and logarithmic function. 我们可以将其概括为X，Y，and Z 的形式。需要注意的是，美国人更习惯使用X，Y，and Z 的形式；英国人不习惯在这里的and 前加逗号，即X，Y and Z，然而此类形式容易引起歧义，请分析示例 3。

参考资料来源：百度百科-参考文献

参考文献的标点符号是全角的。

参考文献的类型

根据GB3469-83《文献类型与文献载体代码》规定，以单字母标识：

M——专著(含古籍中的史、志论著)C——论文集N——报纸文章J——期刊文章D——学位论文R——研究报告S——标准P——专利A——专著、论文集中的析出文献Z——其他未说明的文献类型

扩展资料

论文的种类

1、专题型

这是分析前人研究成果的基础上，以直接论述的形式发表见解，从正面提出某学科中某一学术问题的一种论文。

2、论辩型

这是针对他人在某学科中某一学术问题的见解，凭借充分的论据，着重揭露其不足或错误之处，通过论辩形式来发表见解的一种论文。

3、综述型

这是在归纳、总结前人或今人对某学科中某一学术问题已有研究成果的基础上，加以介绍或评论，从而发表自己见解的一种论文。

4、综合型

这是一种将综述型和论辩型两种形式有机结合起来写成的一种论文。

参考资料来源：百度百科——论文

参加会议的论文都会发表吗

好发。

会议论文是在会议等正式场合宣读首次发表的论文。会议论文是属于公开发表的论文，一般正式的学术交流会议都会出版会议论文集，这样发表的论文一般也会作为职称评定等考核内容。

会议论文我们一般分为国内会议论文和国际会议论文。一般来讲，会议论文不会在杂志上正式发表，所以说要求不高，往往是要求一些新的科研进展的快速报告。

但有时候会议论文会在正式杂志上发表，那是会议主办方和期刊杂志提前做好沟通的结果，这个时候审稿往往要求比较严格，相对难一些，但是比直接投稿给杂志还是要相对容易。

稿件要求：

1.题名：准确，简明，清晰，符合索引要求，中文题名一般不超过 20 个汉字。

2.作者单位：提供作者一，二级单位的名称及邮编。

3.摘要：以提供论文内容梗概为目的，包括：研究目的，方法，结果和结论4 个基本要素，不加评论和注释，以第三人称简明，确切地记述论文的重要内容， 不用"本人，笔者，本文"等第一人称作主语，以 200 至 300 字左右为宜。

4.关键词：是表征论文主题内容具有实质意义的词语，一般 3～8 个。

5.作者简介：姓名(出生年—) ，性别(民族——汉族可省略)，籍贯，学历(学 位)，职称，职务，研究方向，请提供第一作者联系电话和 E-mail 地址。

会议论文是在会议等正式场合宣读首次发表的论文。会议论文是属于公开发表的论文，一般正式的学术交流会议都会出版会议论文集，这样发表的论文一般也会作为职称评定等考核内容。

会议论文，要看会议主办单位，有一些学术会议，在会前出论文集，会后不再出版论文集;有一些学术会议，在会后正式出版论文集，具有出版社和ISBN号。会议论文不是期刊，肯定没有期刊号。

扩展资料：

会议论文的特点：

1、会议论文一定是针对某个学术会议投稿，并且由学术会议的会务组决定是否录用，期刊论文肯定是针对某学术期刊投稿，而且是期刊编辑部决定是否录用，而不是审稿专家，审稿专家只是审稿并返回意见，真正决定录用权在期刊编辑上

2、会议论文录用后，可以选择参加会议或者不参加会议，但是学术会议必须召开，而期刊论文录用后只需等着出版即可

3、会议论文出版后一般会寄送你论文集（部分会议会将论文提交到国际期刊上发表，并寄送你期刊），但是期刊论文出版后一定是寄送你期刊。

4、会议论文一般审稿周期都比较短2周左右，快的1周，甚至野鸡会议几天就可以录用，但是期刊论文相对慢些，国内中文核心期刊一般2个月，普刊也得1－3周左右，当然部分水刊也可以几天录用甚至1天录用。

5、会议论文现在很多都比较水，期刊的话，也有很多水刊，建议大家尽量投权威点的会议或者期刊，太水的会议或者期刊很多单位都是不认可的。

参考资料来源：百度百科-论文

参考资料来源：百度百科-会议论文

论文想一投就中，主要取决于论文的质量和水平，会议论文也是如此。会议论文也是国际学术论文发表的一种，相对于sci论文来说，会议论文的发表难度有所降低，因此是很多作者发表国际学术论文的首选。

会议论文是在会议等正式场合宣读首次发表的论文。会议论文是属于公开发表的论文，一般正式的学术交流会议都会出版会议论文集，这样发表的论文一般也会作为职称评定等考核内容。

高价值高水平的论文任何期刊、会议都会喜欢，会很快录用并通知作者的，这就是为什么发表同样的的期刊或者会议，有的作者的文章很快被录用了，有的就石沉大海了，所以作者想要一投就中，提高文章写作水平是关键，这是关键。

就会议论文来说，除了文章的写作，还要关注会议本身，如果想一投就中，可以选择本专业中影响力权威性不是特别大的会议，相对容易中稿，如果是顶尖会议，对文章的要求也是非常高的，审稿严格，甚至有一定门槛限制，这样的会议就不容易中稿，一投即中就不大可能了。

看你们单位要求哈 如果你们单位有规定会议论文可以加分那就发表呗 现成的也不用再去写论文

所有的论文都会发表吗

不同学历要求是不一样的。本科生的毕业论文是不需要公开发表的，而硕士和博士的论文是需要公开发表的。

学术论文被接受了，不一定会发表你这一口人，他发表的一些内容，你们用了你的东西，不一定是全编发表你的东西

硕士论文不一定都上传知网。

不一定，只有学生主动将论文发表在知网上才可以，将硕士毕业论文发表至知网中后，知网的审核人员会检查论文的重复率以及质量，若符合对应的标准，该篇硕士论文就会被成功发表在知网中。若学生不希望知网搜索到自己的硕士论文，可以不讲论文发表在知网中，但若学校有明确规定必须在知网发表论文，学生需要严格遵守相应的规则。

大多数高校在每年毕业季时，都会统一发通知说明学校的毕业论文规范和查重说明，学校会统一下发论文样式等内容，一般会详细说明查重的范围。要是学校有具体的要求，那提交到学校的时候必须按照学校所要求的来。

硕士论文解释：

硕士论文是攻读硕士学位研究生所撰写的论文。它应能反映出作者广泛而深入地掌握专业基础知识，具有独立进行科研的能力，对所研究的题目有新的独立见解，论文具有一定的深度和较好的科学价值，对本专业学术水平的提高有积极作用。

优秀的硕士论文能够反映出作者对所学习专业的理论知识掌握的程度和水平，能够帮助作者构建起良好的完整的知识体系，还能够反映作者独立的科研能力和学术理论的应用水平，对研究的课题的思考和独立见解。

毕业论文主要是从总体上考查学生学习所达到的学业水平，不一定要公开发表。如果论文具有较高的学术水准，可以征求辅导老师的意见，能否达到在专业刊物发表的标准。

毕业论文都会发表的吗

不同学历要求是不一样的。本科生的毕业论文是不需要公开发表的，而硕士和博士的论文是需要公开发表的。

一般大学毕业论文不洗要发表，只要学校内部评审一下就可以了

这个毕业论文不需要发表，只要在论文答辩中通过就可以了。当然，不同的学校有不同的要求，要根据学校的要求去做。

毕业论文是否发表并没有严格的规定，但是毕业论文必须通过答辩才能毕业