在学术界我还只是个nobody,不过最近在老板的推荐下也开始审一些稿件。刚好今天还看到科学网上有人评论同行评议制度。我不太好说什么。但就我个人而言,至少现在的我还是很认真的,我会仔细的把别人的文章读一遍,公式推一遍,甚至发现公式的错误和不清楚的地方。我老板非常nice,几乎不拒别人的稿件,还劝我对别人的文章要nice,所以他所在的小行当现在看起来还算红火,每年很多文章出来。 我当年就比较惨,由于几乎是在单打独斗,文章写作水平不高,学术价值也不很高,被苛刻的referee骂的非常惨!现在想想,tough or nice各有各的好处,后者可以鼓励后辈(也可能后果是鼓励后辈多发文章,而不是提高水平),但前者也可以激励很多人搞得更好!
在2009年1月14日,我们课题组将纤维复合材料制备方面的一篇研究论文投稿于Journal of Composite Materials,历经我们的三次ASK FOR HELP,今天终于进入了Awaiting Reviewer Scores,接近6个月的时间啊!什么时候能得到审稿意见,还是未知数! 在2009年1月17日,我们课题组将纤维复合材料破坏方面的一篇研究论文也投稿于Journal of Composite Materials,在2月17日得到Minor Revision的审稿意见,2月18日我们提交了修改稿,3月4日被正式接受发表。 冰火两重天!同一个期刊,稿件处理的时间差异真大啊!
最近,给环境类的期刊《 Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 》审稿,整理审稿意见的时候颇有感触。因为这次是我仅有的几次审稿经历之一,所以很是慎重,内容上反复斟酌不说,在组织审稿意见的时候也是破费苦心。这当然一方面是我能力有限,怕写的英文出丑, Chinglish 的恶名可是担待不起,如果被稿子原作者一顿讥讽那真是要钻地下去了。另一方面也是希望自己有所长进,就把过去这些年投过的稿子所返回的审稿意见翻了一遍,仔细研读一遍,希望能写出流畅、地道的英文段子。 写着正起劲的时候,突然想起来在另一份环境类期刊《 Environmental Microbiology 》上,它在每年最后一期都有审稿人评语集锦,觉得是个学习的好对象,就赶紧把过去几年的精选拿出来学习,读后愈发觉得老外的幽默细胞与生俱来,在严肃的科研工作之余,不忘轻松自己也是轻松编辑和审稿人一把。不过有些句子如果是给我稿子的审稿意见,我肯定哭死,伤人的句子确实很扎心。这里特别汇总一些感觉比较有针对性的语录和博友们分享。从中我们也能看出目前很多稿件所存在的共同问题,我感觉很多是针对第三世界国家的科学家们说的,这些问题也很可能就在你我的下一个 submission 中,值得我们警惕。 我们写文章的时候最常见的问题就是英文语法和写作的问题了 --The authors need to remember that adverbs in English tend to end in -ly. --The work is basically sound but unfortunately the presentationis a bit of a dogs breakfast. --The authors seem unable to think/write in a straight line! --They have no clue what they write about. --Im not convinced that they know what theyre talking about. 严重到前后文脱节,文字繁琐冗余 --The Introduction and the Discussion sections are contradictory. I even believe that the Discussion may actually belong to another manuscript . --The Abstract and Results read much like a laundry list . --The Abstract describes results that I could not find in the Results section. --Page X, line Y claims both rare and unusual. Madonna and Tony Blair might use both in the same sentence . --It seems that the manuscript was written by a mathematician , rather than a microbial ecologist. --I only am willing to read this again if it has less than 20 pages (Ed.: the original submission had 54) --I would be glad to look at a revised manuscript, but please give me a few months to get over the current version! --These hobby scientists present their data in such a verbose way that it is not worth to print. 甚至 漏洞百出 -- Mouldy bread (发霉的面包) . Unfortunately there are too many technical flaws in this one. Too bad because the potential was high. --For sake of time I have listed only a few (13!) of the most glaring errors. --Hundreds of commas are missing! 而有些人仍然想自圆其说 --The authors of this study blindly run through the darkness and keep writing down details of their trail. 最后的结果就是 一竿子拍死 --I have found this ms. boring to death. -- The peaceful atmosphere between Christmas and New Year was transiently disrupted by reading this manuscript. -This one almost killed me. I am a detail person, obviously. --I am sorry that I have spoiled my Xmas holidays with such a bad manuscript. --I am fed up with people ignoring totally the instructions for authors. --I wonder if you and I do not have better things to do than help people who cant help themselves. --My heart sinks when I have to review papers from this group as I know my response is most likely going to be as long as the paper. --I hate this paper. Its a bunch of engineers trying to do microbial ecology by numbers and not thinking about what/why they are doing it. --This paper is essentially illegible. I have made suggestions for improvement to the authors, but a full list would have taken much longer than this paper is worth. You will see that I tried to be civil to the authors, as I assume they tried their best to write a good paper. --Reject did not meet any of their objectives. --This is an altogether dispensable paper. The contribution to the field is ZERO. --This is an essentially unreadable paper sent to the wrong journal. --This is the most chaotic manuscript I have ever had for review. I am sorry for the colleagues to have wasted such an amount of time and resources to put this non-informative manuscript together and am I sorry for me to have read it many times to find at least something which is valid (but I could not find a single piece). -- Feels like banging my head against a brick wall with this one. --This paper is long-winded. You can reject it without causing damage for the scientific community. 引文的年代问题也不能忽视 --Almost all references used by the authors are from the last century. 以量取胜的文章小心被揪住为啥数据都不做重复呢 --I really think it is time for molecular studies to use proper replication and not use the amount of work as an excuse anymore. 有些作者自以为是,动不动就是 first time work,不尊重同行已有的工作,审稿人最为反感 --They were not the first to have done this, but they don't seem to know that. --The shear ignorance of work that has been done earlier is frightening! ----I don't think the authors understood the literature well enough to perform the right experiments. 不引用同行的工作,正好落到该同行手里,有可能的评语就是: --Here and elsewhere they make it clear that they do not admire X or Y research (Ed.: Y is the reviewer), they make that quite clear by their non-citation of relevant work. But I have gotten used to it. Once they tighten this up, it is a clear accept. 审稿人对实验结果的取笑不是每个人都能扛得住的 --It also suffers from death by DGGE gels (11 in total aaargh!). --It is amazing to see how much sequencing effort was done and how little profit taken from it. 交叉学科的研究也得小心招致审稿人对外行的取笑 --I am sorry to say . . .but it seems that good chemists walked into the area of environmental microbiology without any knowledge about it. 还有笑话作者的知识水平的 --I have taken out my earlier comment that the authors retake Chemistry 101 (重修基础化学) , that is probably not allowable. -- This was a possible candidate for the worst use of statistics to substantiate a falsehood award. 审稿人读到很糟糕的稿子都会强烈后悔当初同意审稿的决定,并努力把这段经历从记忆中抹去 --I got increasingly angry during the two hours I dedicated to the review. I know that the editors of EM are very busy but they should avoid being an author of a manuscript written in such a style. --Dear Editor, try not to force the poor reviewers to do a work which overcomes their field of expertise. Remember: a happy reviewer (I am not sure if reviewers could reach any level of happiness) should be a better reviewer. --This was a very poor paper. I am sorry I read it; I will try to purge it from my mind. --A terrible paper, not even a good science fair project. Please let me have some time to complete grant applications. 不过,审稿人对好文章也会不吝溢美之词,毕竟他们也是有血有肉的性情中人 --A jewel that the Journal will be proud of for many years to come. --This year I have had the dubious pleasure of reviewing a lot of truly terrible manuscripts. However, this manuscript was a real beauty to review. Please accept this ASAP. --Meticulously presented manuscript, almost perfect in style and grammar (never seen in a ms. coming from Japan). --I found the manuscript to be well performed in all aspects, from the experimental design to the writing ofthe manuscript. I wish allmanuscripts I review were of this quality. --Could become a major highlight of the Journal for many years to come. --Top-quality superb paper with two Achilles heels. --Wow: Systems Biology is knocking at the Journals door. 有审稿人会比较喜欢搞怪的吧,用些我们不大明白的俚语 --I felt like I was teaching my grandmother to suck eggs. Accept with minor revision. --I nearly said reject. But then I recalled that I have a hangover and I am feeling grumpy. --Tank this turkey! 作为新手得提防收到这样的评语 --It looks as if the project was started by a beginner. At some point the seniors realized the initial weaknesses and tried to compensate by high-quality technology and application of up-to-date algorithms. However, if the fundamentals are wrong, any further investments are a waste of time. 其他一些问题有: 不知道通讯作者们有多少是根本不读稿子的 --Another ms bites the dust I dont think the corresponding author has read it. 而且,署名作者的数量太多也会被质疑 --It is hard for me to understand why it takes 5 authors to perform and describe one simple experiment. 数据太完美的问题比较少见,不过也得小心 --I do not want to accuse the authors of falsification of the data, but these figures are simply too perfect! 最后,多体谅一下老先生们的眼睛吧,尽量用大点的字号! --The only other major criticism is the font size in Fig. 2. It is a strain on old eyes! 注 :所有句子原始出处均可在 Environmental Microbiology 期刊的网站上下载得到,每年最后一期的最后一篇文章都是 referees quotes 。
前两天收到了一封电子邮件,是 IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation Measurement 的 AE 发来的,邀请我审一篇投稿文章。收到这封邮件,我很惊讶,因为我一直认为审稿是一件很光荣的事情,不是一般人都能审的;更主要的是我还是一个博士研究生,收到这样的邀请有点出乎意料,我在该会刊上没有发表过文章,只是在该会刊的国际会议上发表过两篇会议文章。由于该文章的研究领域我不是很熟,而且我现在的研究方向不是仪器与测量方面的,于是我婉拒了 AE 的邀请。出于礼貌和作学术应有的谦虚,我首先给 AE 回了邮件,然后执行了 DECLINE 。我的英文不是很好,而且由于是第一次写婉拒信,不知措辞是否恰当,现在把给 AE 的回信贴在下面,请大家给我审稿,向大家学习。 注: AE 的名字、涉及该投稿稿件的内容被隐去。 Dear Dr. XXX , Sincerely thanks for your invitation. My research interest mainly covers adaptive signal processing. I master so limited knowledge on XXX . I'm so sorry to inform you that I have no confidence to technically review the manuscript XXX . I will take declining action later on. Hope this manuscript will be evaluated appropriately in a timely manner under you r arrangement. Sinserely yours Jian Liu, Ph.D candidate Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China
科罗拉多大学Raj教授在最新发表于Journal of American Ceramics Society上的一篇文章里重新讨论了关于电场对于抑制陶瓷晶粒生长的现象,并提出了唯象方面的解释。抑制陶瓷材料在高温下的晶粒生长一直是一个难题,无论是静态生长还是动态生长,相关的理论都有很多的发展,但是最根本的考虑来说就是晶界处的热力学和动力学两方面考虑。热力学考虑的驱动力问题,和晶界的曲率、组分以及空间电荷层分布都有很大的关系;动力学问题需要考虑物质迁移过程中要跨越的势垒,当然,这个更多地和晶体结构、缺陷化学以及外部场(温度,电,磁等)有直接关系。Raj教授和在印度的同事通过施加直流电场在氧化锆陶瓷上,结果发现陶瓷在高温下长时间退火后晶粒的生长和电场分布有直接的联系:在电场强度大的区域,陶瓷晶粒生长的速率明显要慢了很多。而且这个场强也不是很大,只有4V/cm,所以结果还是蛮吸引人的。 根据陶瓷的烧结理论,晶粒尺寸减小对于陶瓷烧结过程已经塑性变形有很大的影响,比如说尺寸减小一半,烧结速率可以提高16倍,而塑性形变率可以提高8倍。Raj在这篇文章主要探讨的是电场对于静态生长的影响,认为虽然电场对于空间电荷会有很大影响,物质的迁移率也会提高,但是晶界处的局部高温会降低驱动力(表面能),两者综合起来可以解释为什么晶粒生长得到抑制。另一方面,外加电场对于晶格缺陷态的分布会不会有很大的影响,比如说对于带正电的氧空位或者取代位以及晶格间隙位等的迁移有没有直接的作用?对于作者的观点,他们认为这个纳米尺度晶界处的空间电荷层场强高达上万V/cm,相比外加电场来说不在一个数量级上面,所以不应该会有很大的变化。具体到氧化钇稳定氧化锆这个体系来说,钇离子也不会往晶界偏析。 对于氧化锆这种固体氧离子导体材料来说,是否氧气会在电场作用下在晶界处电解出也是一个疑问。这是审稿人对于作者提出机理有效性的质疑,也是审稿人自己对于这种晶粒受抑制现象的思考。文章的作者团队用了整整两段的篇幅来回答审稿人的讨论意见,甚至在文后也没有给出结论,这大概在我读过的文献中是比较少见的现象。从文章来看,作者Raj等人最后也没有完全接受审稿人的建议,而是持有一种开放性的意见。并一再强调界面处的迁移动力学问题应该和热力学驱动力两者同时来讨论,这当然是正确的。虽然这篇文章没有给出很完整的支持证据或者系统的对比试验来印证自己的观点,就实验现象而言是值得同行注目的。我也注意到东京工业大学的若井史博教授(F. Wakai)是这篇文章的投稿编辑,这篇文章显然审稿意见是不理想的,若井教授坚持发表估计也是综合了修改稿后增加的开放式评论,以及他自己本人也很关注晶粒生长现象这个原因。 不过要指出的是,虽然Raj教授文中一再把陶瓷超塑性作为背景来讨论,本文的结果却不是动态晶粒生长的范畴,所以我觉得有些牵强。 审稿人意见在同行评议中占据了很大的作用,我们在投稿中经常会遇到某些审稿人很刁钻的疑问,甚至需要你重新补充实验来支持或者证伪某一个观点。这样的审稿人是很认真的,不是简单让你引用他一篇文章了事。遇到这样长篇幅的评价意见,即便被期刊编辑枪毙掉,你也应该感觉很庆幸。当然,我们遇到更多的是处于高位的审稿人,面对的是批判性的审稿意见,而不是具有交流型的探讨式的评价。作者的答复也往往是歌功颂德式的,对审稿意见不加批判的全盘接受,为了就是文章能够顺利的接受。某些时候,我们这些没有成名的科学工作者往往都要采取妥协的态度来应付审稿人的意见:引用他的文章;高度评价一下他人工作的重要性;柔和一下他的观点;换一个模糊的说法重申自己的结论等等。但是对于成名的科学家,如Raj教授,那么开展正常的学术讨论成为发表的一部分,读这种含有针锋相对观点的文章你能收获更多隐藏在科学结果下面的东西,而不是被动地接受一个观点。 投稿是一个什么样的过程?根据大部分学者来说无疑是一种审判,或者你的观点幸运地被两三个审稿人接受,或者被打入冷宫没法过年。这个时候你要有好的心态,对自己的工作要有足够的信心。没有足够的信心,你只要学会妥协或者屈服,直到达到你发表的目的。不过我常常对自己说的话是,如果自己都对自己工作不满意的话,即便花了心思对潜在审稿人实施了投机性的策略,那么发表出来的工作还不是丢了自己的脸? 史上最有名的关于投稿人和审稿人之间的争论是发生在爱因斯坦身上的。在1937年老爱同志信心波波地往物理评论上投稿阐述引力波的问题,后来某位审稿人回复来的意见写了十页纸,评述引力波的不恰当。老爱在随后写给物理评论主编的信中写道:我是来陈述我的观点的不是受批判的(大意如此)。1937年的老爱,大概是当时物理界themost niubious guy,说出这样的话也没什么奇怪。但是后来才知道这位审稿人是老爱同志在普林斯顿的一位同事(名字忘了,忘博友提醒),这也是佳话。当然,物理评论最终也没有登出这篇文章。 reference 1, Santonu Ghosh , Atul H. Chokshi , Pilhwa Lee and Rishi Raj, 'A Huge Effect of Weak dc Electrical Fields on Grain Growth in Zirconia' J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 2009.
经过了太多的研究和讨论,我回答了张院士的一个问题,这个问题提出就是在 物理评论E 上,所以就向那里投了。第一稿 一个反对,一个提了好多问题;好在提的问题都回答了,第二稿,开始反对的那个科学家也支持我了。有几点注意的: (1)做真正的科研,想凑数就找低的刊物。您自己要有把握,你的理论必须是对的。 (2)不要怕难,多花费时间就是了,视科研为乐。 (3)要有主见。 (4)充分尊重前辈的成果。 下面是审稿的过程: CURRENT STATUS OF MANUSCRIPT: Editorially approved for publication CORRESPONDENCE: SENT RECEIVED DESCRIPTION 26Mar09 Correspondence (miscellaneous) sent to author 25Mar09 26Mar09 Correspondence sent to author; response received 19Mar09 Editorially approved for publication 16Mar09 Correspondence (miscellaneous) sent to author 11Mar09 14Mar09 Ed. decision and/or ref. comments to author; response rcvd 23Feb09 09Mar09 Review request to referee; report received 23Feb09 25Feb09 Review request to referee; report received 17Feb09 Correspondence (miscellaneous) sent to author 29Jan09 16Feb09 Ed. decision and/or ref. comments to author; response rcvd 23Dec08 26Jan09 Review request to referee; report received 13Jan09 14Jan09 Reminder to referee; response received 17Dec08 06Jan09 Review request to referee; report received 17Dec08 23Dec08 Review request to referee; message received (not a report) 15Dec08 Acknowledgment sent to author 15Dec08 Correspondence (miscellaneous) sent to author
去年末一篇稿子审稿意见回来了,简单修改可以接收,看样子可能都不需要找审稿人再看一遍了。我看了看审稿人的意见,确实不是很尖锐,比较容易修改。于是就改了,并写了修改意见,一并返回。 过了一段日子,反馈意见回来了。还是让我继续改,而且说如果因为时间不够可以申请延长。这我觉得很奇怪。仔细一看,原来是处理稿件的associated editor说我没有根据第二个审稿人的意见补充足够的仿真结果。我把原来的审稿意见拿过来一看,觉得很奇快,因为第二个审稿人根本没有提到这个问题,不过第一个审稿人提出了类似的意见。于是我增加了一些仿真结果。提交了修改稿。 过了一段日子,意见回来了,内容和上次一样,并且警告我如果不按照意见修改的话,论文将被拒掉。我觉得有些奇怪,已经在修改稿中增加了仿真结果,不知道editor是否看了。于是我回复说两个审稿人的意见我都参照修改了,并把其第一次的返回意见附上,告诉他我不明白还要怎么修改,是否他把一些审稿意见遗漏了。 又过了一段日子,反馈来了,说接收了,直接让我把源文件提供。处理稿件的associated editor给作者的反馈意见写的是:I am now happy for the paper to be published. 他自己明白了他把两个审稿人的意见搞混了。看来editor的工作也很不容易,本身就是工作之余的学术服务,要处理那么多稿件,难免有些犯糊涂的时候。
看到一些关于学术刊物决定接受( accept )或是拒收( reject )文章的根据和权限的讨论,就自己的经验和看法,说几句。 先区分一下刊物的编辑、编辑部、和编委会。 一般来说,国内刊物编辑部和编委会的区分是明确的:编辑部由工作人员组成, 编委会 由学术专家组成。后者作为决策机构,只管 大政方针 ;而前者虽然只是执行机构,但权力一般限于决定由谁来审稿。 但是,说到编辑,国内外有很大不同:国外的刊物,如果是主编( Editor ,或 Chief Editor ),一般有最后决定权;如果是副主编( Associate Editor ),权力也相当大;但如果只是助理编辑( Assistant Editor ),则大致相当编辑部的常设人员。而国内刊物的主编、副主编大致还是起指导作用,亲自审稿的不多。 国外的比较有名的刊物,很多是主编和副主编来决定由谁来审稿,编辑部的助理编辑只是负责具体的 paperwork 。主编觉得好的文章,可以不经送审,直接决定发。笔者去年的一篇文章,就没有送审,主编看过后直接付印。其信中说: I went through the manuscript myself and I found it quite interesting and a very stimulating contribution to the ongoing debate. Therefore, I am happy to accept your submission without any need for further review. 有时即使几个 referees 都 reject 的文章,如果主编觉得好,也可以 override the referees ,决定发。一个有名的例子就是芝加哥大学的著名天体物理学家 E. N. Parker 当年提出太阳风理论的文章。当时 ApJ 找的几个 referees 都强烈地反对这个理论,但是 ApJ 主编在自己看了这篇文章之后,决定发表。去年是太阳风理论提出 50 周年。美国物理学会专门邀请 E. N. Parker 出席做报告。这位老先生回忆起这段往事,不无感慨地告诉听众:写文章不要怕别人反对,往往越是好文章,被反对得越厉害。同样,一个好主编,需要具备当年的 ApJ 主编那样的慧眼和勇气,敢于力排众议,发表 Parker 太阳风理论这样标新立异的文章。 至于副主编,特别是比较重要刊物的副主编,权力也很大。比如著名的《美国地球物理学报》 JGR 的空间版,就在主编下设两个地区副主编(亚洲、欧洲 Associate Editor )。文章分由这三个主编处理,无法决定的由三个主编协商解决。另一个例子是 PRL ,每个领域有一到两名副主编( Associate Editor ,即同行所称 Division Editor )。如果你不同意 referee 的意见,可以 appeal 。一般 Editor 会 assign 第三个 referee 来做公判。但是你认为这第三个 referee 也不公平,或者你觉得他的观点也不对,你可以继续 appeal 。这时 Editor 会把你的 appeal 和你与几个 referee 争论的所有材料送给 Division Editor ,让他(她)做最后决断。这个决定是最后决定。所以 PRL 副主编的权力是很大的。 一个刊物要办好,很大程度上取决于其主编和副主编们的水平和 vision 。