宇宙研究發表涵蓋空間科學和技術所有主題的科學論文，包括：彈道學、地球人造衛星和自動行星際站的飛行動力學；跨大氣層下降問題；航天器和科學研究儀器的設計和結構；載人航天器的生命支持系統和輻射安全；從空間探索地球；探索近空間；探索太陽、行星、次行星和行星際介質；探索恒星、星云、星際介質、星系、和來自航天器的類星體；以及與空間探索有關的各種天體物理學問題。還提供了關于該期刊主要主題的科學事件和其他通告的編年史。同行審查宇宙研究是一個同行評審的期刊。根據紙張的不同，我們使用單/雙盲。我們的評審團隊包括35名內部和外部評審人員（70%）。從提交到2017年作出第一項決定的平均時間為14天，從作出第一項決定到接受決定的平均時間為75天。2017年提交手稿的拒絕率為25%。接受文章出版的最終決定，由編委或者總編作出。因利益沖突而感到不合格或無法審閱稿件的被邀評審人，應及時通知編輯并拒絕邀請。審評員應以合理合理的方式清晰地表述他們的陳述，以便作者可以利用審評員的論據來改進手稿。必須避免對作者的個人批評。審查人員應在審查中(1)說明作者未引用的任何相關出版作品，(2以前出版物中已報告但未給予適當參考或引用的任何內容，（3）與其本人所知的其他手稿（已出版或未出版）有任何實質性的相似或重疊。

Cosmic Research publishes scientific papers covering all subjects of space science and technology, including the following: ballistics, flight dynamics of the Earth’s artificial satellites and automatic interplanetary stations; problems of transatmospheric descent; design and structure of spacecraft and scientific research instrumentation; life support systems and radiation safety of manned spacecrafts; exploration of the Earth from Space; exploration of near space; exploration of the Sun, planets, secondary planets, and interplanetary medium; exploration of stars, nebulae, interstellar medium, galaxies, and quasars from spacecraft; and various astrophysical problems related to space exploration. A chronicle of scientific events and other notices concerning the main topics of the journal are also presented.PEER REVIEWCosmic Research is a peer reviewed journal. We use a single/double blind depending on the paper level. Our team of reviewers includes 35 reviewers, both internal and external (70%). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 14 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 75 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 25%. The final decision on the acceptance of an article for publication is made by the Editorial Board or the Editor-in-Chief.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.