《技術物理快報》是一本與《技術物理》雜志為伴的雜志，提供理論和實驗物理的快速發展和潛在的技術應用。最近的重點包括許多關于氣體激光器和半導體激光的論文，以及許多關于高溫超導的報告。在《技術物理學》雜志上看到的等離子體物理學的優秀報道，也在這里展示了在所有可能的技術應用領域的理論和實驗工作的快速發展。主題包括基礎物理和應用物理;等離子體物理;固體物理;物理電子學;加速器;微波電子設備;全息術。同行評審《技術物理快報》是一本同行評議的期刊。我們使用單一的盲同行評審格式。我們的審稿人團隊包括來自9個國家的內外部審稿人580余人(95%)。2017年從提交到首次評審的平均周期為7天，從首次評審到驗收的平均周期為21天。2017年投稿退稿率為32%。接受發表文章的最終決定由編輯委員會作出。被邀請的審稿人因利益沖突，認為不符合審稿條件或者不能審稿的，應當及時通知審稿人，并予以拒絕。審稿人應以一種合理合理的方式清晰地闡述自己的觀點，這樣作者才能利用審稿人的觀點來完善稿件。必須避免對作者的個人批評。評論者應該顯示發表的一篇評論(我)任何相關的工作沒有被引用的作者,(2)任何已報道在以前的出版物和沒有適當的參考或引用,(2)任何實質性相似或重疊與其他手稿(發表或未發表)的個人知識。

Technical Physics Letters is a companion journal to Technical Physics and offers rapid publication of developments in theoretical and experimental physics with potential technological applications. Recent emphasis has included many papers on gas lasers and on lasing in semiconductors, as well as many reports on high Tc superconductivity. The excellent coverage of plasma physics seen in the parent journal, Technical Physics, is also present here with quick communication of developments in theoretical and experimental work in all fields with probable technical applications. Topics covered are basic and applied physics; plasma physics; solid state physics; physical electronics; accelerators; microwave electron devices; holography.PEER REVIEWTechnical Physics Letters is a peer reviewed journal. We use a single blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes over 580 reviewers, both internal and external (95%), from 9 countries. The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 7 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 21 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 32%. The final decision on the acceptance of an article for publication is made by 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appropriate reference or citation, (ii) any substantial similarity or overlap with any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.