Open Journal of Geology, 2017, 7, 588-601

http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojg
ISSN Online: 2161-7589
ISSN Print: 2161-7570

The Research and Application of Bright Spot

Quantitative Interpretation in Deepwater
Exploration

Yi He, Jitian Zhu, Yingzhao Zhang, Aiqun Liu, Guangchao Pan

Zhanjiang Branch of China National Offshore Oil Corporation Ltd., Zhanjiang, China

How to cite this paper: He, Y., Zhu, J.T., Abstract

Zhang, Y.Z., Liu, A.Q. and Pan, G.C. (2017)
The Research and Application of Bright Prospectors usually recognize the event with strong amplitude in seismic sec-
Spot Quantitative Interpretation in Deep- tions as bright spots. However, such a simple and rough method can’t distin-
water Exploration. Open Journal of Geolo-
guish whether these bright spots are related to favorable gas layer or water
gy, 7, 588-601.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ojg.2017.74040 layer directly. In this paper, for the high correlation between reservoir gas-
content and amplitude anomaly in research area, based on rock physical anal-
Received: March 3, 2017 ysis of the wells drilled, using forward modeling technique respectively simu-
Accepted: April 27, 2017
lates and analyzes the seismic amplitude of gas layer and water layer. Then,
Published: April 30, 2017
combining the simulation result with corresponding statistics amplitude ob-
Copyright © 2017 by authors and tains the numerical relationship between each layer amplitude. At last, using
Scientific Research Publishing Inc. the display technique directly recognizes the bright spots of gas layer in seis-
This work is licensed under the Creative
mic profile and gets rid of those false bright spots caused by water layer, which
Commons Attribution International
License (CC BY 4.0).
improved the robustness in the bright spots interpretation and provided relia-
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ble basis for reducing exploration risks. Moreover, applying the method to the
Open Access target zone, we obtain huge success.

Keywords
Bright Spot, Wedge Model, Tuning Thickness, Rock Physical Analysis,
Amplitude Quantitative Interpretation

1. Introduction
Bright Spot Technology [1] [2] is a method used to detect oil and gas accumu-
lated in traps based on real amplitude, which became an important or indis-
pensable means in oil-gas exploration with good results in practical application
[3] [4]. This technology is based on the change of seismic wave amplitude versus
hydrocarbon in reservoir. Usually when searching the favorable target with
bright spot, we mostly used the energy strength of seismic amplitude to distin-

DOI: 10.4236/ojg.2017.74040 April 30, 2017

 Y. He et al.

guish the bright spot, and eventually achieved the target evaluation. This method
to determine whether the stratigraphic is a favorable target is simple and rough,
which can’t actually judge whether the stratigraphic really contains gas on the
basis of the strong amplitude from seismic profile. According to bright spot
identification, the upper and lower groups of strata are characterized by strong
amplitude and continuous reflection in the central canyon target area of the
deep water area of the South China Sea. Based on that, the target in two strata
has been evaluated and drilled. The drilling result indicated that the lower bright
spot is thick sandstone that was full of high-yield gas. It was found that both gas
layer and water layer drilled the well L1 and well L2 show bright spot features in
seismic profile with horizontal contrast (Figure 1).
The practice has proved that not all the bright spots are the reflection of oil
and gas reservoirs and all the oil and gas reservoirs do not necessarily show the
bright spot characteristic. This bright spot feature in seismic profile is the ex-
pression of not only oil and gas, but also some special geological bodies like wa-
ter layer. In 1975 [5], according to the success or failure experience in Bright
Spot technology, Royal Dutch Shell considered most bright spots have been not
resulted in by the hydrocarbon reservoirs which have commercial value, and
warned the industry that there have been some traps in bright spots in time.
Bright Spot technology has become one of the key technologies in oil and gas
exploration, which has been used to discover lots of large and medium oil-gas
fields successfully. With the deepening of exploration more and more cases of
failure in Bright Spot technology have come, whose drawback of multi-solution
has been exposed gradually [6] [7] [8] [9]. By analyzing the reason of the failure,
it is attributed to the multi-solutions of the geophysics that is the equivalent of
petrophysical properties. Therefore, in order to better serve the exploration,
Bright Spot technology also needs to keep pace with the times. According to the

Figure 1. The true bright spots in conventional seismic section of three wells drilled.

589
Y. He et al.

change of oil and gas exploration environment and in order to meet the new
demand, it is necessary to further study and improve the applicability of Bright
Spot technology.
By analyzing the petrophysical data of the wells drilled in the study area, it is
found that there is a great difference between the elastic parameters of the reser-
voir contained gas and water. The low impedance and low density characteristics
have been showed in both of gas layer and water layer, but the acoustic impedance
and density of gas layer is lower than water layer, which caused that the impedance
difference between gas layer and the overlying mudstone is far greater than the
difference between aquifer and mudstone. There is a close relationship between
the difference of P-wave impedance and the reflection coefficient, which is that the
impedance difference is big, the reflection coefficient is large, and the impedance
difference is small, the reflection coefficient is small. The value of the reflection
coefficient determines the amplitude value of the seismic profile. Therefore, gas
layer and water layer will show different amplitude values in the seismic profile. In
this case, whether gas layer and water layer can be identified directly on the seis-
mic profile by analyzing the amplitude of bright spot, so as to reduce the mul-
ti-solution of bright spot identification [10] [11] [12] [13]? Based on rock physics
analysis and using the current amplitude fidelity of seismic data, the quantitative
interpretation research of bright spot has been carried out from the perspective of
amplitude quantification for gas layer and water layer, which directed the identifi-
cation of hydrocarbon reservoir in study area and laid the foundation for the suc-
cess of subsequent wells.

2. Principle of Method
In order to realize the purpose of explaining the bright spot directly into gas
layer or water layer in seismic profile, first of all, based on the petrophysical
analysis for the wells drilled and according to the relationship between the im-
pedance of the reservoir and the surrounding rock, determine the relative rela-
tionship of amplitude between the reservoir and the surrounding rock by using
simulation method, combine the relationship with the statistical results of the
actual seismic amplitude value corresponding to the drilled reservoir, distinguish
bright spots shown by gas layer and water layer with the quantitative display
means, eliminate the false bright spots caused by water layer and highlight the
true bright spots caused by gas layer [14] [15] [16].
Then, based on the above understanding and aimed at the different situation
of reservoir contained gas and water, carry out the petrophysical analysis deeply,
find the sensitive elastic parameters of gas layer and water layer, conduct the
forward modeling of reservoir fluid, physical properties and thickness tuning by
using wedge model, further simulate and analyze the relationship of amplitude
value caused by the impedance difference between gas layer, water layer and
surrounding rock, determine the numerical value of gas layer and water layer
amplitude under the same surrounding rock.
Ultimately, combined with the actual seismic amplitude statistics of gas layer

590
 Y. He et al.

and water layer in wells drilled, establish the quantitative relationship between
reservoir and amplitude [17], form a quantitative interpretation and evaluation
technique for Huangliu Formation reservoirs in the central canyon.

2.1. Analysis of Seismic Rock Physics

Based on the petrophysical analysis of the well drilled in the study area (Figure
2), we know that the gas group in the well L1 shows the significant characteris-
tics of low impedance and low density compared with the overlaying rock
(mudstone), meanwhile, which still presents the feature of low impedance and
low density compared with the lower water layer (sandstone). However, the
P-wave impedance difference between gas layer and water layer is smaller than
that between gas layer and mudstone.
The analysis results of Huangliu Formation in other two wells indicate that
gas layer still displays the characteristics of low impedance and low den-

Figure 2. The petrophysical analysis of the well drilled in the Central Canyon.

591
Y. He et al.

sity, and the P-wave impedance difference between water layer and mudstone is
much smaller than that of gas layer and mudstone. Therefore, the petrophysical
analysis results of three wells give that once the reservoir is filled with gas, the
impedance of it will be far less than that of water layer, and there is obvious dif-
ference between these layers of Huangliu Formation with the density of mud-
stone, water layer and gas layer decreasing.

2.2. Forward Modeling of Amplitude of Reservoir

The principle of seismic exploration tells that the amplitude value of the inter-
face between the underground geological bodies is proportional to the reflection
coefficient size of it and there is the following relationship between the reflection
coefficient size and the impedance value of upper and lower media [18].
ρ V − ρ1V1
RP = 2 2 (1)
ρ 2V2 + ρ1V1
Here, RP is reflection coefficient, ρ1V1 is P-wave impedance of overlaying
rock, ρ 2V2 is P-wave impedance of underlying rock.
Known from the above describing, there is a numerical relationship between
the seismic amplitude and the reservoir. However, what is this relationship? It
needs to be ascertained by forward modeling. Previous studies [19] [20] indi-
cated that the seismic amplitude is mainly affected by the following three factors:
acquisition, processing and geological reasons which include the reflection coef-
ficient, the thickness tuning, multi-layer interference, etc. It is considered that
the influence factors of the seismic amplitude is mainly due to the geological
factors such as the difference of the reflection coefficient caused by the differ-
ence of the fluid and the physical property, the thickness tuning caused by the
thickness variation, etc. Because multilayer interference as the influence factors
of the thickness can increase the complexity of seismic amplitude, only the
physical property difference, the change of the fluid and the thickness tuning
will be considered as the main influence factors of seismic amplitude in this
study, but not the multilayer interference. Based on the petrophysical characte-
ristics of the reservoir and the influence factors of the amplitude, the forward
modeling is studied from three aspects.
1) Physical property
According to the physical property data of the reservoir of the wells drilled,
designed porosity within the range from 23% to 30%, conducted forward mod-
eling of gas layer and water layer for each value of the porosity, got the statistics
for each simulation results (Figure 3), obtained the relationship with porosity
changes between the reservoir (including gas layer and water layer) and ampli-
tude (Figure 4). In Figure 4, the Red color indicates the maximum tuning am-
plitude of gas layer, the Magenta color indicates the non-tuning amplitude of gas
layer, the Blue color presents the maximum tuning amplitude of water layer and
the Purple color presents the non-tuning amplitude of water layer. As can be
seen from Figure 4, i) with the increase of porosity, the amplitude of gas layer
and water layer increases gradually; ii) under the same porosity, the maximum

592
 Y. He et al.

Figure 3. The physical property, the thickness and the amplitude relationship analysis.

Figure 4. The amplitude relationship analysis of gas layer and water layer in different porosity.

tuning amplitude of gas layer is greater than that of other three layers, the max-
imum tuning amplitude of water layer is equivalent to that of gas layer, and it is
less than the maximum tuning amplitude of gas layer, the non-tuning amplitude
of water layer is smallest; iii) When the difference between two different porosi-
ties is in the range of 3% to 4%, the non-tuning amplitude of gas layer with small
porosity is still greater than the non-tuning amplitude of water layer with large
porosity.
2) Fluid
The reservoir drilled in Huangliu Formation are mainly explained as gas layer
and water layer, so gas layer and water layer with different depths were chosen in
three wells drilled respectively, and the amplitude of these layers was simulated.
It is known from the simulation results (Figure 5) that the amplitude of gas

593
Y. He et al.

Figure 5. The forward modeling of gas layer and water layer in the central canyon.

layer is much larger than that of water layer, which is consistent with the ampli-
tude value of gas layer and water layer extracted from the seismic profile. These
results show that the top surface of gas layer can lead to stronger seismic ampli-
tude, and there is a great difference of amplitude caused by the top surface of gas
layer and that of water layer in the seismic profile, which can be distinguished by
naked eyes.
3) Thickness tuning
The corresponding wedge models have been designed respectively for gas
layer and water layer chosen above, meanwhile, the forward modeling of the ef-
fect of thickness tuning on amplitude has been carried out for these layers. The
steps of simulation are as follows: firstly, according to the actual logging data,
the corresponding velocity and density curves of gas layer and water layer have
been turned into square wave; secondly, referring to the thickness of the sand
which has been drilled, the thickness of the wedge model is changed from 0 m to
2 times the maximum thickness of reservoir; finally, the wedge model has been
simulated by using theoretical wavelet(Ricker) and the wavelet extracted from
Well-to-Seismic Calibration referring to convolution theory. The frequency of
Ricker wavelet is determined in the light of the main frequency of the objective
layer obtained from frequency analysis of the seismic data.
The simulation result shows that the amplitude values of gas layer and water
layer have increased with the increasing of thickness gradually, when the thick-

594
 Y. He et al.

ness increases to a certain value, the amplitudes of gas layer and water layer
reach the maximum value (the maximum tuning amplitude), then the amplitude
with thickness decreases, at last, the amplitude tends to be stable after the thick-
ness reaches a certain greater value. As a whole, the amplitude of gas layer is
stronger than that of water layer, even if water layer is in the maximum tuning
amplitude, the value of which is still smaller than that of gas layer (Figure 6).
Further analyzing the relationship between the amplitude values of gas layer and
water layer deeply, pick up the maximum tuning amplitude value of gas layer,
the non-tuning amplitude value of gas layer , the maximum tuning amplitude
value of water layer and the non-tuning amplitude value of water layer, think
that there are multiple relationship between the amplitude values of gas layer
and water layer like this: 1.1 ~ 2.6 after comparing and calculating the four kinds
of data (Figure 7). In addition, when the gas layer and water layer in the study
area get the maximum tuning amplitude, the corresponding thickness is 16 m
and 19 m respectively; when the amplitude of gas layer and water layer is trans-
ferred from tuning to non-tuning, the thickness of them is 32 m and 38 m re-
spectively; both of the amplitudes tend to be stable and remain unchanged when
the thickness of them is more than 32 m and 38 m respectively.

Figure 6. The influence analysis of the reservoir amplitudes during the thickness tuning.

595
Y. He et al.

Figure 7. The numerical relationship analysis of gas layer and water layer.

2.3. Bright Spot Quantitative Interpretation and Evaluation

After determining the numerical relationship between the amplitudes of differ-
ent reservoirs, according to the amplitude threshold values of gas layer and water
layer, eliminate the false bright spots caused by water layer on the seismic pro-
file, retain the true bright spots of gas layer, finally, identify the real highlights of
gas layer quickly and accurately.
1) The amplitude statistics of actual reservoir drilled
It is necessary to achieve the amplitude statistics of seismic trace near wells
drilled corresponding to the reservoir drilled before determining the gain para-
meters. After the well-seismic calibration done, each reservoir is corresponded
to the event in seismic profile one by one, and then the seismic amplitude value
corresponding to each reservoir is picked up. The amplitude statistics of gas
layer and water layer of three wells drilled in this study are as follows (Table 1),
which has been obtained by the method above.
Combined with the multiple relations between the maximum tuning ampli-
tude or the non-tuning amplitude of gas layer and that of water layer on the ba-
sis of forward modeling analysis as mentioned in the article, the range of the
amplitude of water layer is calculated, then after comprehensive considered, the
threshold used to remove the bright spots caused by water layer will be con-
firmed.
2) Confirming the thresholds of gas layer and water layer
The multiple relation between the amplitude value of gas layer and that of
water layer is as follows: 1.1 ~ 2.6 from the forward modeling, which shows that
the absolute value of the amplitude of gas layer is still greater than that of water
layer even if the amplitude of water layer is the maximum tuning amplitude and
that of gas layer is the non-tuning amplitude. It is known that the average am-
plitude of water layer is about −0.35e + 08 from the statistical data of the actual
amplitude of the wells drilled, therefore, combined with the results of forward
modeling and the amplitude statistics of the reservoir, the threshold value of
water layer can be set to −0.35e + 08. Next, the amplitude values of the event are

596
 Y. He et al.

weakened by reducing the gain of seismic profile, which is greater than the thre-
shold of water layer, and the event that still shows very strong amplitude in the
profile is the top interface of gas layer (Figure 8).

Table 1. The amplitudes and the porosity statistics of the well drilled in the central canyon.

Well Amplitude Amplitude average Thickness Porosity

Sand Note
name in well around well in well (m) in well (%)

I −5.02 × 108 −5.3 × 108 58.4 27.49 gas

S1
II −4.05 × 108 −3 × 108 68.2 30.18 water

Iup −7.2 × 108 −8.1 × 108 12 28.8 gas

Idown −5.2 × 108 −7.2 × 108 30.9 27.49 gas

L1 II −3.85 × 108 −5.1 × 108 4.3 27.85 gas

III −3.27 × 108 −3.0 × 108 62 25.02 water

IV −6.75 × 108 −4.15 × 108 6.2 23.98 gas

I −6.0 × 108 −5.9 × 108 7.4 27.1 gas

II −2.0 × 108 −2.4 × 108 26.3 25.72 water

L2
III −10.2 × 108 −8.5 × 108 22.1 27.73 gas

IV −4.5 × 108 −4.0 × 108 12.2 28.62 Water (gas contained in top of layer)

Figure 8. The quantitative visualization of the amplitudes for seismic section.

597
Y. He et al.

3. Application Effect Analysis in Practice

According to the petrophysical analysis and study on regional geological condi-
tions, studied the quantitative relationship between the reservoir and the ampli-
tude by the forward modeling; formed the quantitative interpretation evaluation
technology of Bright Spot; identified the real bright spot; then, by using the
technique combined with pre-stack joint inversion, judged the gas bearing of
bright spot in the undrilled structure of Huangliu formation of the Central
Canyon; finally, proved the gas-bearing prediction accuracy by practical drilling.

3.1. Application of Gas Bearing Prediction

In this paper, the quantitative analysis of bright spot and the gas bearing predic-
tion of it are carried out by using the technique of bright spot and pre-stack joint
inversion before drilling well L3/L4 (Figure 9). It can be seen from the cross sec-
tion of two wells in Figure 9 that the seismic amplitude of each gas group at the
well L4 point has been preserved after the treatment of amplitude quantitative
weakening, which is still showing strong energy. At the same time, the I and IV
gas groups in the Huangliu formation of the well L3 point show strong ampli-
tude energy. However, the II and III gas groups present weak amplitude. Ac-
cording to the principle of quantitative interpretation of the bright spot, it is
considered that each of these gas groups with strong amplitude feature in the
two wells is the true bright spot.
On the basis of fine description of sand body, pre-stack joint inversion is car-
ried out by pre-stack seismic data with interpretative processing. It can be shown
(Figure 10) that each of these gas groups distinguished corresponds to remarka-
ble low P-wave impedance and low density anomaly. Combined with the results
of rock physics analysis, it is thought that there is a great possibility of gas bear-
ing in these gas groups mentioned above. After drilling, logging interpretation
shows that the I, II, III and IV gas groups of Huangliu formation in the well L4
are all high productive gas layers, the I and IV gas groups of Huangliu formation
in the well L3 are also high productive gas layers, however, the II and III gas
groups are all water layers. The result of log interpretation is completely consis-
tent to the prediction before drilling. Furthermore, high industrial gas-flow is
obtained from these gas groups of two wells after gas testing.
Similarly, the above techniques are used in the section through well L8. It is
predicted that the I gas group of Huangliu formation in well L8 have been filled
with gas, and the II gas group of Huangliu formation in well L8 has been filled
without gas (Figure 11). After drilling, the log interpretation results are consis-
tent with the prediction. High industrial gas-flow is also obtained from the well.

3.2. Application Prospection

In addition to being able to distinguish the true and false bright spots in the
seismic profile, the quantitative interpretation of bright spot can be used to
guide the coring test, well completion and drilling target selection in the drilling
process. Practice has proved that the application of this technology in the recog-

598
 Y. He et al.

nition of gas layer and water layer and in drilling operations has achieved good
results. It is not only presented that the method is simple and practical and it

Figure 9. The amplitude quantitative interpretation of well L3 and L4 before drilling.

Figure 10. The pre-stack inversion of the section through well L3 and L4 before drilling.

599
Y. He et al.

Figure 11. The amplitude quantitative interpretation of well L8 before drilling.

plays an important role in the objective assessment, but also that its application
brings direct economic benefits for production operations, especially the in-
crease of reserves, saving the drilling cost.

4. Conclusions and Suggestion

Through the quantitative analysis and case study, we can draw the following
conclusions.
For a certain depth and porosity, whether the reservoir thickness is tuned or
not, seismic amplitude of gas layer showed stronger than that of water layer in
seismic profile, which established theory foundation of identifying "true" and
"false" bright spots in the seismic section.
Application effect of exploration example demonstrates that this method of
amplitude quantitative identification has strong practicability and robustness,
which has provided a new idea for distinguishing true and false bright spots and
reduced the risk of oil and gas exploration to some extent.
However, there are still some limitations in the quantitative identification of
bright spot, which does not take into account the influence of reservoir buried
depth on seismic amplitude. In the future, we will study the reservoir amplitude
combined with the diagenesis.

Fund Project
National Science and technology major special projects supported by 2016ZX-
05026-002.

600
 Y. He et al.

References
[1] Fu, C.F. (1975) “Bright Spot” Technology—The Method of Directly Searching Oil
and Gas by Using Seismic Profile. Oil Geophysical Prospecting, 10, 9-34.
[2] Calculating Station of Chengdu Institute of Geology, et al. (1977) “Bright Spot”
Model Technique. Geophysical Prospecting for Petroleum, 4, 46-53, 55-62.
[3] Wang, L.Q. (1984) The Bright Spot in Traditional Seismic Profile. Oil Geophysical
Prospecting, 19, 80-86.
[4] Wang, D.C. (1982) The Detection Effect of Bright Spot in Continental Facies Strata.
Oil Geophysical Prospecting, 17, 30-35.
[5] The Intelligence Department of Geophysical Prospecting Bureau of China Petro-
leum (1975) The Warning of Bright Spot—There Is Not Really without Mistake. Oil
Geophysical Prospecting, 2, 40-41.
[6] Almoghrabi, H., et al. (1986) Layers & Bright Spots. Geophysics, 51, 699-709.
https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1442123
[7] Pan, Y.J. (1988) The Relationship between Bright Spot, Dark Spot and Oil-Gas. Oil
Geophysical Prospecting, 6, 737-744.
[8] He, Z.H. and Ma, C.D. (1989) The Feasibility of Finding Gas by “Bright Spot” in
Junggar Basin, Xinjiang Petroleum. Geology, 10, 14-23.
[9] Yang, Y.L., Sun, H.F. and Wang, H.Z. (1991) The Research on Bright Spot and Its
Application of Shallow Gas Exploration in the Dongying Sag. Geophysical Pros-
pecting for Petroleum, 1, 39-49.
[10] Wang, Y.J. and Wang, X.M. (1995) The Feature and the Recognition of Bright Spot
Gas Reservoir in the 3-D Seismic Data of Jiyang Depression. Geophysical Prospect-
ing for Petroleum, 4, 66-72.
[11] Wei, W., Li, H.M., Yang, Y.L., et al. (2011) The Recognition Technique of True and
False Bright Spot in the Shallow of Chenjiazhuang Area. Reservoir Evaluation and
Development, 1, 12-15.
[12] Zhao, S. and Gao, Q. (2013) Using Adjacent Seismic Reflection Characteristics of
the Energy Mix to Exclude “Bright Spot” Trap—Taking Deyang Syncline in West-
ern Sichuan Depression as an Example. Natural Gas Geoscience, 24, 1253-1259.
[13] Liu, W. and Cao, S.Y. (2015) Identification of Gas Reservoir Related with Bright
Spots and Thin-Bed Tuning. Oil Geophysical Prospecting, 50, 678-683, 705.
[14] Zhu, H.T., Hu, X.Q. and Chen, X.J. (2002) Preliminary Study on the Application of
Bright Spots Oil and Gas Testing Technique. Offshore Oil, 3, 27-32.
[15] Li, S.E., Zhang, Y.Z. and Wen, Y.J. (2003) Shallow Formation Bright Spot and Gas
Exploration. Natural Gas Geoscience, 14, 291-294.
[16] Cai, X.B. (2012) The Effectiveness Analysis of Using “Bright Spot”, “Dark Spot”
Technique to Test Oil and Gas in Putaohua Reservoir of Taipingchuan Region. Sci-
ence Technology and Engineering, 12, 2132-2136.
[17] Xiao, Z.B., Zhang, J.M. and Cao, X.Y. (2013) The Application Analysis of Bright
Spot Technology Based on the Statistics of the Physical Rock. Computerized Tomo-
graphy Theory and Applications, 22, 447-454.
[18] Lu, J.M. (1993) Principle of Seismic Exploration. Petroleum Industry Press, Beijing,
19-20.
[19] Jiang, B.H., Cai, Y.Q. and Wang, Y.Y. (2012) Analysis of Influence Factors on Seis-
mic Amplitude in Bohai Sea Area. Petroleum Geology and Engineering, 26, 47-51.
[20] Zhou, J.X., Liu, W.W. and Ma, G.K. (2013) Fine Description and Prediction of Seis-
mic Attributes of HPHT Gas Reservoirs in the Yinggehai Basin. Natural Gas Indus-
try, 33, 7-11.

601
Submit or recommend next manuscript to SCIRP and we will provide best
service for you:
Accepting pre-submission inquiries through Email, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc.
A wide selection of journals (inclusive of 9 subjects, more than 200 journals)
Providing 24-hour high-quality service
User-friendly online submission system
Fair and swift peer-review system
Efficient typesetting and proofreading procedure
Display of the result of downloads and visits, as well as the number of cited articles
Maximum dissemination of your research work
Submit your manuscript at: http://papersubmission.scirp.org/
Or contact [email protected]