几乎每个学者都有被拒稿的经历。期刊的接受率通常很低，《柳叶刀》接受率不到 5 %，PLoS ONE 大概 69 %。然而，大多数被拒论文最终都得以发表。 在国际科学编辑ISE的这篇博客文章中，我们将讨论如果你的论文被拒绝，你还有哪些选择，以及哪条路是发表文章阻碍最小的。 来源： https://onsizzle.com/i/sympathy-cards-for-scientists-condolences-on-your-sorry-failed-to-3725064 你可以对编辑的决定进行申诉 只有当您有无可置疑的理由这样做时，才应该使用此选项。 如果你的论文被拒绝的原因与杂志的具体议程有关 --比如你的论文超出了期刊的范围，该杂志最近发表了一篇类似的论文，或者正在准备发表类似的论文，编辑/审稿人认为你的论文相对于其他待发表论文的影响力有限等等。上诉成功可能性很小。 大多数期刊没有能力发表提交给它们的每一篇论文，必须拒绝许多即使科学合理的论文，以防止积压稿件。 如果论文因为审稿人提出的技术问题而被拒稿 ，你确定是审稿人的观点是错误的，你可以上诉。尽可能明确地陈述你的论点，不要重复原稿中所写的内容。如果可以的话，添加新的数据来支持你的论点，修改原稿，使你的论点更清楚。如果一个审稿人误解了你的观点，读者很可能也会感到困惑。如果你认为审稿人没有足够的能力来审核你的论文，礼貌而有策略地请求杂志编辑邀请另一位审稿人。 如果你有明确的证据证明审稿人有不符合伦理的行为—利益冲突、偏见 (参见同行评审报告中的性别歧视示例3)——你可以上诉。 作为作者，你有权提出上诉。然而，有几件重要的事情要记住: · 上诉很少成功。 · 上诉的优先级比重新投稿到新期刊要低，从上诉到收到结果，可能需要几周的时间 ，才能做出决定。 · 杂志编辑们都很忙，如果你上诉，后来被发现没有新的根据，你有可能会被列入“难以沟通”的黑名单。 · 如果你决定上诉，请参阅“How to write an appeal letter”这篇文章，它有一个非常好的指南清单。 你可以把你的论文转投另一本期刊 一些期刊提供 “可转移的同行评审” ，如果你的论文被拒，你可以要求你的手稿，元数据，同行评审报告(连同审稿人身份，在达成协议的情况下)，和回复信发送给其他期刊。这些期刊通常来自同一出版商，因此您的转刊选择可能是有限的(例如,BMC)。如果新期刊更合适，与向其他期刊提交新文章相比，这是一种更快的发表方式。如果你担心任何首发权问题，这也是有利的，因为通常发表的论文使用的是原始提交日期，而不是转投后的日期 。 然而，由于许多期刊不提供可转移的同行评审。随着生命科学联盟（Life Science Alliance） 的成立，以及BMC Biology期刊宣布允许作者将他们期刊的拒稿意见转到作者选择的任何期刊，包括BMC和Springer Nature 之外的期刊，可转移的同行评审可能正在兴起。 你可能会担心把之前被拒的所有细节都转交给新期刊的编辑，新期刊的编辑是否会因为他的期刊不是第一选择而受到困扰。事实上，这一误解可能是科学界对可转移的同行评审缺乏理解。编辑们通常“很高兴收到之前审阅过和修改过的稿件，因为论文的整体状况通常更好:更简洁、更清晰” 。 你可以投稿给另一个期刊 这是对拒稿最常见的应对。事实上，许多作者选择了 “先投稿高影响力期刊，如果被拒绝就放弃” 的策略，似乎并不关心潜在的时间浪费 。为了增加成功的机会，你应该根据最初的审稿人/编辑的意见， 选择更适合你的期刊 。如上所述，通常科学合理的论文被拒绝的原因与研究的影响力有关，例如，如果论文只是以前研究的一个小扩展。较低级别或专业期刊更有可能发表此类研究。相对来说，很少能找到一篇存在根本性缺陷、无法在任何期刊上发表的论文。 在改投前，根据被拒期刊审稿人的意见修改论文是非常重要的， 因为你的论文很有可能被送到相同的审稿人那里。 可以投稿到预印本服务器 在预印本服务器上发布的限制条件要少很多；论文只经过基本筛选。投稿免费，通常在48小时内就能接收论文。你的论文不会被同行评审；其他学者可以(公开或私下)在文章发表后对其内容进行评论。你可以上传任何论文，甚至是那些通过同行评审的论文。预印本将被分配一个DOI，它将正式为您文章中的任何声明或想法添加日期，并支持在数据库(如Google Scholar和CrossRef)中索引预印本。 参考文献 1.The Grigorieff Lab.The Paper Rejection Repository. Available from: http://grigoriefflab.janelia.org/rejections . 2. https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2019/03/27/first-cut-results-of-poll-on-manuscript-rejections-we-deal-with-a-lot-of-rejection/ . 3.Bernstein R. PLOS ONE ousts reviewer, editor after sexist peer-review storm. Science. 2015 May 1. Available from: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/05/plos-one-ousts-reviewer-editor-after-sexist-peer-review-storm . 4.When to dispute a decision. Available from: https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/authorandreviewertutorials/submitting-to-a-journal-and-peer-review/when-to-dispute-a-decision/10285586 . 5.Doerr A. How to write an appeal letter. Methagora Blog Nature Methods. Available from: http://blogs.nature.com/methagora/2013/09/how-to-write-an-appeal-letter.html . 6.JMIR Publications. Why has my article been transferred to another journal (or a transfer has been suggested), and what are my options? Available from: https://support.jmir.org/hc/en-us/articles/115002462188-Why-has-my-article-been-transferred-to-another-journal-or-a-transfer-has-been-suggested-and-what-are-my-options- . 7.Kießling T. Publishing alliance comes of age. EMBO. Available from: https://www.embo.org/news/articles/2019/publishing-alliance-comes-of-age . 8.Bell GP, Kvajo M. Tackling waste in publishing through portable peer review. BMC Biol. 2018;16:146. Available from: https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-018-0619-z . 9.Pells R. Journal shares peer reviews of rejected papers with rival titles. Times Higher Education. 2019 Jan 2. Available from: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/journal-shares-peer-reviews-rejected-papers-rival-titles . 10.Sullivan GM. What to do when your paper is rejected. J Grad Med Educ. 2015 Mar;7(1):1–3. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4507896/ . 11.Durso TW. Editors’ advice to rejected authors: Just try, try again. The Scientist. 1997. 11:13. Available from: https://www.the-scientist.com/profession/editors-advice-to-rejected-authors-just-try-try-again-57323 . 12. https://www.internationalscienceediting.com/my-paper-was-rejected-what-are-my-options/
最近给IoP旗下一个影响因子2点多的期刊审了一个文章，第一次给的意见是内容水平低，拒稿。居然还有一个审稿人给好意见。 编辑最后给作者修改机会。 作者修改后，编辑再次让我审，无语了，居然作者不标注在哪里改了，而且还有语法错误，而且引言居然写了很长很长一段历史，和文章的主题没有一点关系，愤怒至极，这次居然没有拒稿这个选项，我给了不合格修改。 更无语的是还是另一个审稿人居然说 satisfied response...,他 believe 作者们 have considered those comments carefully. ... I agree to accept this manuscript... 估计编辑看到我这么强硬，找来 Board Member 审稿，审稿意见我基本一样，不过他比我仔细，比我有时间，居然发现作者是仿照作者所用的商用软件公开的例子做的，更更无语了... 结局是：reject 我没错...
张海霞︱致 IEEE 主席：赞学术界回归常识 2019 年 6 月 3 日 【题记】今天上午收到 IEEE 主席 José M. F. Moura 的来信 “IEEE 解除对编辑和同行评审活动的限制 ” ，赞赏 IEEE 的勇气，很高兴学术界回归常识。谢谢所有朋友的关心和支持，今后我会继续支持 IEEE 的各项工作，致力于推动学术的独立和自由发展，很荣幸和骄傲与你们同行！ Dear Prof. José M. F. Moura, Cc to Prof. Toshio Fukuta, Prof. Lombardi Fabrizio, and Prof. Gianluca Piazza, I am so glad to get your email with subject “A message from the IEEE President: IEEE Lifts Restrictions on Editorial and Peer Review Activities”. This is the best news I ever heard from May 29th after I send out my open letters. Thanks for all your efforts to Lift Restrictions on Editorial and Peer Review Activities from IEEE under this special time period with outside pressure and insider resistance. This is a moment, we, Academic community, should be proud for our fight to keep the Independence and Freedom of Academic. As I mentioned in my statement, I will come back to IEEE NANO and IEEE JEMS editorial board until one day it comes back to our common professional integrity. Now, it is time to re-join the team and contribute my efforts with enthusiasm as usual. Let’s work together to make IEEE, an international academic community, great again. Haixia Zhang, Professor, Peking University June 3rd, 2019 附： IEEE 主席的来信 Dear Haixia Zhang, Last week the U.S. government issued export controls on Huawei Technologies Ltd and 68 of its affiliated companies. In response, IEEE issued guidance on actions required to comply with these controls. We acted promptly because we wanted to protect our volunteers and members from potential legal risk that could have involved significant penalties. As a non-political, not-for-profit organization registered in New York, IEEE must comply with its legal obligations under the laws of the United States and other jurisdictions. We also engaged the U.S. government to seek clarification on the extent to which these export control restrictions were applicable to IEEE activities.I am pleased to report that this engagement was successful and we have revised our guidance to remove any restriction on the participation of the employees of these companies as editors or peer reviewers in the IEEE publication process. To reemphasize, all IEEE members can continue to participate in the open and public activities of the IEEE, including our scientific and technical publications.Many members expressed apprehension with respect to IEEE’s initial guidance and its impact on editors and peer reviewers based on their employer affiliation. I understand the concern this raised for many of you and appreciate the feedback that IEEE leaders and I received.As an international organization operating in 160 countries, IEEE supports the free and open exchange of scholarly and academic work and the global advancement of science and technology. IEEE is committed to enabling an environment of international cooperation and the sharing of our members’ wealth of knowledge to drive innovation.We appreciate the patience of our members and volunteers as we worked through a legally complex situation. If you have any comments, questions, or concerns, please contact me atpresident@ieee.org.For more information, please visit www.ieee.org . Thank you for supporting IEEE in our mission to advance technology for humanity. José M. F. Moura2019 IEEE President and CEO
一片很有意思，用词华丽的文章。 https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/revolutionandrevelation/77711 Is Journal Peer-Review Now Just a Game? Milton Packer wonders if the time has come for instant replay Many believe that there is something sacred about the process by which manuscripts undergo peer-review by journals. A rigorous study described in a thoughtful paper is sent out to leading experts, who read it carefully and provide unbiased feedback. The process is conducted with honor and in a timely manner. It sounds nice, but most of the time, it does not happen that way. I have experienced the peer-review process from the perspectives of an author, reviewer, and editor. It is an enormously challenging and unpredictable journey. Let's start with the authors. If the authors are aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their manuscript, the paper is not written in a dispassionate manner. Instead, it is crafted for publication in a specific journal. Authors fashion and direct their paper to the journal most likely to be receptive to its content and message. Successful authors are good matchmakers -- and good marketers. In their cover letter, they often sell the paper to the editors. The editors receive an enormous number of papers. Top journals receive dozens of manuscripts each day. The editors perform an initial cursory review, and reject many papers in an electronic instant. More than half of the submissions do not survive the screening process. The authors are notified quickly about the bad news, but they receive no feedback. Many relatively unknown authors believe this process is biased against them. If the paper passes the initial hurdle, the editor sends it out for peer-review by external experts. But who are these peers? It is nearly impossible to find experts who are knowledgeable and insightful and who are also willing to take the time to perform a thorough and thoughtful review. Luminaries routinely decline most invitations to review manuscripts. Their busy schedules do not afford the opportunity to do a good job, and many believe that there is little return for their investment of time and effort. In a recent experience as an editor, I suggested four well-known experts as reviewers, but all of them declined. Then I proposed four different knowledgeable investigators, and one accepted. After three rounds of suggestions, I finally found two or three people who would agree to do the review. Successful editors have identified a core group of people who are willing to do reviews on a regular basis, but sadly, the size of the group is not very large. All too often, editors rely heavily on early- or mid-career investigators, who are anxious to curry favor with the journal -- in the hope that the brownie points they earn might be useful when they submit their own work at a later time. Do these early- or mid-career investigators do a decent job? Many of them are outstanding, but in too many circumstances, the young reviewer just does not know the field well or may be unfamiliar with the appropriate methods. They read the paper as a novice, and their lack of expertise and experience shows. When I act as a reviewer, I am sent copies of the comments of the other people who evaluated the paper. In a distressingly high proportion of instances, I am astonished by the dismal quality of the other reviews. Some reviewers do not appear to have spent any time with the paper at all. Many submit formulaic responses, which fail to provide any useful critique or feedback. Many reviewers miss major and obvious deficiencies, whereas others nitpick a paper to death. Even for a single reviewer, the rigor of the evaluation process is not consistent, probably because the time they can spend varies according to their schedule. At the end, the review is subject to the luck of the draw, and the editor is faced with reviews that vary enormously in quality. If the evaluations are patently deficient, they are discounted. Some promise a review, but fail to deliver. Others send private comments to the editor, but none to the authors. If the editor is fortunate, at least one reviewer actually does a thorough job. The really amazing part? Typically, the reviewers perform their evaluation without any ability to know if the authors accurately described their methods or their data. Often, the reviewers are akin to judges at a beauty pageant. They know what looks good, but sometimes, they might wonder if it is real. As an author, I am often amazed by the reviews that I receive. Many reviewers seem not to have taken time to read the paper. Some offer tangential ideas that have little to do with the manuscript, presumably to show that they thought about the subject. Others insist that their own work be cited. (The self-serving nature of some comments can be appalling.) Often, I cannot determine how the poor editors ever made an informed decision. Nevertheless, if the journal has expressed interest in the paper, the authors now must revise the manuscript and write a letter that responds to the feedback of the reviewers. Regardless of the insanity of any individual comment, the authors must respectfully (often obsequiously) embrace each sentence and thank the reviewer for it. All too often, in their zeal to please the reviewers, the authors revise the paper in a way that makes it much worse than the original. After the entire process is complete, the authors may receive an acceptance letter. This letter offers them the opportunity to have their paper published, but often, only if they pay a fee (even in top-ranked journals). And when the paper finally appears online or in print, the authors have the privilege of seeing their work ignored. Does this sound like a ridiculous game? It is. As in the 1983 film WarGames, it is a strange game, in which the only winning move is not to play. Do you think I am exaggerating? Do you believe it is not a game? British journal editors do not refer to those who provide external feedback as reviewers. They call them referees. In the U.S., the term referees is used to identify people who watch a game closely to ensure that the rules are adhered to. But when I act as a reviewer, I do not think of myself as an umpire. Umpires are not allowed to publicly celebrate a great play or moan when a player errs. The peer-review process can (and is supposed to) do these things. I love writing papers. I adore looking at data, researching the literature, and working with fellows and young faculty. I am delighted when I discover new ways of synthesizing and presenting a concept. And I am truly delighted when my paper is accepted. But given everything that I have just written in this essay, I am clearly a glutton for punishment. The peer-review process is horribly broken. My dear friend Harlan Krumholz, MD, of Yale University, has written about this for years. In a famed paper ( The End of Journals ), he argued that journals are too slow, too expensive, too limited, too unreliable, too parochial, and too static. In his efforts to forge a solution, Harlan has been the leading advocate for preprint servers, a platform that allows authors to post a version of a scholarly paper that precedes peer review. The idea has real merit, and its following is growing rapidly. If you think of peer-review as a game, than the preprint server is easy to understand. If you are fond of football or baseball, just think of it as instant replay. You can see the paper immediately and repeatedly in its original state from every possible angle. But in the case of preprint servers, the instant replay takes place before the play has actually occurred. Got it? Peer-review is a game -- with a dollop of talent and an abundance of chance. So, are you feeling lucky today?
1，我的投稿状态自从投稿后一个月就没有变化了，我应该联系期刊吗？ 一个月没有变化不是特别反常。如果是我的话，我会等待更长一点时间再决定是否去联系期刊，因为有很多事情可能是作者没有意识到的。记住杂志社主编有一个更加重要、全职的工作-有可能是某个学院的院长等。他只会在业余时间来组完成杂志工作。他有可能会连续几天忙于行政工作或外出开会。尽管作者通过在线系统投稿，但是请记住最终和你打交道的是个人。例如你的文章状态是审稿完成，但是一直没有收到决定意见。想象一下如果这个人站在你面前，你会如何去问？因此，我会在状态没有变化后6周后再去询问状态，但是一定要用礼貌的语气。你可以随时联系期刊的客服人员并询问状态。他们有可能知道为什么文章的状态一直没变。 如果文章状态一直是awaiting editor assignment或者admin processing，原因可能是期刊没有找到合适的审稿人。学术出版依赖审稿人的专业意见。期刊通常会有一个审稿人库，有些期刊主编甚至会邀请一些新近在本杂志发表文章的一些作者来担任审稿人。所以如果杂志社让作者推荐审稿人，作者一定要抓住机会，推荐合适的审稿人。 如果文章状态一直没变，并且超过一定的时间（例如6个月以上），你完全有权利撤稿并改投。 2，我们收到俩个完全相反的审稿意见，怎么办？ 理想状态下，主编会发现这种情况并作出处理意见。然而，就像之前说过，主编非常忙碌，可能没有时间去查看具体的审稿意见。我建议，和周围的同事或导师仔细推敲审稿意见，在十分确定两个审稿意见相反的情况下，直接写信给主编说明情况，请主编协调。同时在信中写上你非常感谢两位审稿人付出的时间等等溢美之词（就算审稿人犯错了，咱们还是得礼貌的指出）。记住，我们是和人在打交道，想象一下如果这两位审稿人站在你面前，你该如何做？ 3，为什么杂志明明已经拒稿，但是还是邀请我重投呢？ 如果审稿意见让你修改的地方特别大，需要补充实验，修回时间预期会有很长时间。那么杂志社会建议先拒稿，然后邀请你重投，因为是大修的话，这篇文章的投稿时间到返修时间可能会很长，不利于杂志社的整体管理。要记住，主编的一个任务就是要保证审稿时间和过程。基于这些原因，杂志社可能会邀请你修改后重新投稿。 4，我们的文章是以研究性论文的形式投稿，但是杂志社让我们改成通讯，该怎么办？ 有几个原因杂志社让你把研究性论文改成通讯，例如结果比较初级，读者可能兴趣不高或者对目前的专业研究补充不够大等。这个期刊对几种文章类型是否有字数限制？仔细看一下自己的文章，是否篇幅看起来类似通讯？也许杂志社只有很小的版面，所以只能以通讯的形式发表论文。记住文章接受前，你有权撤稿。然而如果是顶级的期刊提出这样的要求，你可以慎重考虑。 5，我的文章被一个期刊拒稿，但是这个期刊建议我投稿到另外一个影响因子低一点的期刊，我要接受这样的意见吗？ 理论上，你想投稿任何期刊都可以，只要保证一次投稿一个期刊就好。我们通常的投稿策略是先投稿高影响因子，然后再投稿低影响因子，但是我们也要考虑时间成本。有些出版商的期刊，例如Elsevier期刊，在拒稿一篇稿件后会建议作者再改投另外一个同一出版商的期刊。虽然不能保证改投后就会接受，但是这样做的好处也是显而易见的：同一出版商旗下，不同期刊的排版风格很类似，直接改投的话，不需要作者再次排版和注册等；同时出版商知道他们的期刊接受率和拒稿率。通常情况下他们建议改投的第二个期刊会有权分享前一个期刊的审稿意见，从而加速文章的审稿过程。 6，我们的研究领域比较狭窄，并且对之前已发表的文献，有些地方我们不能苟同，我们该如何报道？ 还是要礼貌对待之前的作者，用数据和事实说话。着重描述数据而不是个人。多查一些类似的文献。多用下面的词语，例如“our results indicate, or demonstrate” 而少用 “our results prove, or disprove” 7，我该引用原始使用方法的那篇文献，还是近期使用该方法的文献？ 最好是引用第一次使用该方法的文献。如果你希望表明该方法近期还有在使用，你可以加一个近期引用的文献。例如，可以这样说，“the compound was synthesized following the method of Bloggs et al. , as modified by Smith and Jones )”. 8，我们引用的许多文献都是中文的，这会有问题吗？ 就像我们之前提到的，每个作者都需要引用不是自己原创的观点。但是当你投稿到一个英文期刊的时候，如果引用的观点或文献都是中文的话，就会产生问题。审稿人理应去评估作者引用的文献，即这些文献是否相关？是否是近期的研究？是否恰当等等。当他们没有能力去读懂中文文献的时候，他们就不能做出有效的评估。同时，对于要发表这个文章的杂志来说，如果读者看不懂这些文献，读者就不能十分信服这篇文章的理论依据。因此，我建议尽量去引用英文的、原始的文献。如果确实某些研究只有中文文献，你可以在投稿信中解释一下大部分关于此项的研究都是中文，因此我们这个研究是对当前研究的一个总括并介绍给英文读者。“much original research has been done on this subject but it is only available in Chinese, therefore we give a brief overview of current research for the English language reader.”这样做的好处是让你的这篇文献会变成原始的英文文献，其他人今后要研究就会来引用。但是我建议一定要确保吃透中文文献，这样其他人才能信服并依赖你的研究。 9，我的研究方法不算新，但是我找不到已发表第一次使用此方法的文献。我如何才能避免疑似抄袭？ A: 许多作者的方法部分不是新的，因为开发/发明新的方法不算他们研究的重点。就像你所问的，最好的做法就是引用原始的发表文献。但是如果你找不到，你可以像这样写来避免疑似抄袭“we prepared XXX using the standard method, as follows…”。如果审稿意见说让你引用文献，你可以解释说这种方法之前没有被以文章的形式发表过，你可以这样写“we prepared XXX using the standard method, as used in previous studies , as follows…”。 10，如果被杂志社检测出重复率很高，我该怎么办？ A: 杂志社出具的相似度报告是为了杜绝任何可能的版权纠纷，也为了防止作者大幅度的抄袭已发表的文献，包括作者自己的文献。但是这个报告本身只是一个建议并不能完全说明作者的文章有抄袭嫌疑。例如“the data is presented as the mean ± standard deviation”这样的句型成千上万的作者都使用。杂志社本身应该更负责任的具体看一下文章本身。不幸的是，现在投稿量很大，有很多杂志并没有这么做。有可能的话，您可以试着用自己的话来写文章，当然你也可以联系杂志社，并且解释你并没有抄袭。
7 月 6 日收到某国外 SCI 期刊的审稿邀请，看了论文题目和摘要，虽然和我做的研究方向相关，但其却偏重硬件和体系结构方面。这方面，我并不是特别的熟悉，而且留给我的审稿时间非常短，只有 10 天；再加上进入考试周，需要监考，批改试卷，时间比较紧，就有点想拒绝审稿的意思。 但仔细阅读编辑给我发的邮件，除了以前那些套话之外，还多出了一段额外的话：“ I kindly ask you to give this review invitation the same consideration that you would want one of your own manuscripts to receive. ”正好我有一篇稿件投稿在该期刊，且目前处于审稿状态，所以怕影响该稿件，就接受了审稿邀请。 接下来就开始进入催命模式了。接受审稿邀请后第一天（也就是7号）又收到邮件，内容为该稿件为期刊专刊的稿件，为不影响专刊的正常出版，请你加快审稿过程。这时，我心里就嘀咕了，不是给10天的时间吗？才过去一天就催。当然对这封邮件，我也没有理睬。又过了3天，10号编辑又发邮件来催；我还是没有理睬，因为最终期限是16号，而我手头的事情还没有忙完，所以腾不出时间。11号，编辑又发邮件来催，这让人非常郁闷。不是约好16号提交吗，一直这样催，感觉没有意思。 经不住这样的催促，13号放下自己的手头工作，终于将该稿件审理完毕。结果，14号就收到期刊编辑发的该稿件拒稿通知。这效率简直逆天了，要知道，我的稿件目前处于审稿状态已经很久了，还是没有收到反馈。 经过这事之后，以后得吃一堑长一智，在自己时间不能完全保证的情况下，不能轻易答应审稿，免得给自己带来不必要的麻烦。
今天天气阴凉，黯淡无光，可以吐2个槽！ 中文知名期刊的审稿人 中文期刊提高引用的广告 中文知名期刊的审稿人： 最近投了一篇letter给国内某知名期刊，三个审稿人；我们的文章已有30篇参考文献，三个审稿人（貌似都没太读懂我们的工作）给我们提出加引的文献达到25篇，其中某东南亚（估计）审稿人，竟是建议了他们课题组的12篇各种非主流新杂志的工作，要求引上。花了三天时间来研究这25篇文献，其中有12篇用相同方法，但科学问题和体系完全不相关；2篇体系相关，问题和方法完全无法对比；2篇提到一种普适性的误差分析方法，经典方法在特定条件下的小改进，让信号更敏感，对于我们做的材料体系，有无分析实际意义不大；剩下的11篇，问题、方法、体系或数据分析原理等，与我们的文章的工作没有一丝关联。我这是该引还是不该呢，要支持国内期刊，头一次遇到如此奇芭的审稿要求。杂志主编给我们一个大修，对这种审稿意见（个人感觉除了加引文献，没有其他任何建议），如何着。身为作者，审稿人和青年编委的某人，无比郁闷，吐个槽！ 中文期刊提高引用的广告： 这是我的一个国外合作者转发给我的，邮件是由jinwenscience\\.com的邮箱发过去的， 很丢脸的！ 字体格式来自原邮件。 “ Dear XX, How are you? This is a Chinese Company. Our company cooperate with some journals, our jobis to make advertisement for the journals. We read some of yourjournal papers online, we understand that your research is relatedto thejournals. We want to build long-term cooperation with you: there are some appointed journal papers that need to be cited. If you publish your papers in some journals that are indexed in SCI(Science Citation Index, that is, the journals you submit to should be indexed by SCI), and if you cite these appointed papers in your journal papers, we will appreciate it very much! We will send you 50 US dollars (the United States dollars) for each citation. If you cite 1 paper in one of your journal paper, you will get 50 US dollars; if you cite 2 in one paper, you will get 100 US dollars; if you cite 3 in one paper, you will get 150 US dollars; ....... if you cite 10 in one paper, you will get 500 US dollars; The cooperation mode is as follows: (1) you cite somepapers from the journals in your paper; (2) when your paper is accepted by the journals that are indexed in SCI, you will get an “ accepted manuscript ” from the journal before your paper is published online , you send your “accepted manuscript” to this email as soon as you get it, thus we will know that you cite the papers, at the same timeyou should also send your bank account to me; (3) we will check the “reference” in your accepted paper; (4) Then I will send the money to you as soon as your paper is published online. If you do not have a US dollar bank account, it is OK, we can send you other currency that is equal to US dollars you should get, like RMB or Euro, or others. This is a win-win cooperation , you get money, we make advertisement for our journals , this is good for everyone. This is not a scam. This is to improve the IF ( Impact Factor ) of the journals, as you know, for the academic journals, if it has high IF (Impact Factor), it will become more and more famous and important. This is why some journals ask our companyto improve their IF (Impact Factor). So this is a win-win cooperation. Or maybe you can have a try, you cite the papers, wewill give you money, and you will cite more, you get more money.If wedo not give you money, you just do not cite the papers any more, there is no risk for you. If you publish 4 journalpapers this year, and in each paper, you cite 6 papers fromthejournals, you will cite 24papers from the journals, then you will get 1200USD this year. This is not too much money, but you can get this money very easily . The important thing is that, we can build long-term cooperation year and year. In factnow there are many professors in many countries cooperating with us, and cite many papers from the journals,surely they get much money from our company. So If you are also interested in this cooperation, please reply to jinwenscience@163.com and I will send you some journals to cite. And I will send the money payment list to you, so you will see that we have sent much money to many people in manycountries. Thank you for yourpatience and cooperation, if you have anyquestions and concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know. I look forwardto hearing from you. Yours sincerely, Zhang ”
悬赏 100万美金和悬赏100万人民币 大家知道，世纪初，美国克莱数学院定义了千禧年七大世界难题，并对每一问题悬赏100万美金，NP问题位列第一。 科学确实不能用金钱来衡量，这个悬赏很无聊。而且这个七大千禧年难题的定义，也有很大的副作用。我个人极其反感这个。 正是因为这个定义和悬赏，期刊编辑，审稿人一听说我声称解决了NP问题，立马有一种本能的反感，本能地判断不可能。 若不是这个可恶的定义和悬赏，我无非就是搞了一个算法，对这个算法作出正确与否的判定，根本不是什么难事。 在非这个专业的人里面，有一类熟人，比如科学网就有不少，关注我，支持我和鼓励我，一些拥有敏锐头脑和观察力的，还给予了信赖，至少是某种程度的信赖吧。其他绝大部分人所持的正确方式应该是：不置可否。 逻辑非常简单，发表观点，相信我还是否我，这都没有关系，但要采取行动，那就必须慎重了。万分可笑的是，某些小掌权者，比如某个垃圾网站或垃圾期刊的掌权者，对自己垃圾般的智力和知识基础缺乏最起码的自量，竟然认为自己也“懂NP”，甚至可笑地以为NP=P就是“违背了科学”，据此以小权力涉及到行为层面，那就是可恶和无耻了。 就是在我的那些高智商的同学熟人里面，他们对我也是半信半疑，对如此顶级的世界难题被我解决依然感到不可思议。尤其是当看到我张狂的个性的时候，他们甚至也希望看我的笑话。 举个例子，当我最初在电话中告诉我大学的同学，哲学家H，我解决了NP的时候，他的第一反应是：我们是你的同学，了解你，相信你确实可能搞得出这么难的问题，但别人不了解你啊，如何让别人相信你……云云。同样，即使是这位同学，他也感到不可思议和难以置信，甚至可能也希望看张狂的我的笑话。 前篇博文，蒙美国名校宾州大学终身数学教授廖兄留言，他的留言如下： To someone, if you know professors at 清华 computer science department, do professor Du a favor and find somebody who specializes in computational complexity. It should take no more than two weeks to have a preliminary judgement: if the paper is on something and deserves further study or if the author has been living in his own bubble and the paper can be safely dismissed. 他希望有内行的权威专家能给我鉴定，看我到底是真的解决了还是生活在自己所造的肥皂泡之中，他认为，初步鉴定最多也就花两周的时间吧。 廖教授人不错，常言君子成人之美。而他关于最多花两周的时间作出初步判定，也是内行的看法（论文在一国际顶级期刊的编辑手中，5个多月了，现在状态还是with editor，责任太大啊！他们也拿不准。而我对此期刊，对编辑，依然寄予厚望）。 问题是人人时间都宝贵，尤其是权威专家们，谁愿意花这两周的时间。 想起了当年不可一世的吕不韦，吕不韦作吕氏春秋，声称谁能改动一字，即赏钱千金。 本人既非贪官亦非奸商老板，财力有限，我也挂出赏金，上限是100万人民币。谁能证明我是错的，100万人民币的辛苦费；谁能真正看懂，并能让国际权威期刊的专家看懂，谁就是合作者，第二作者。 讲了一大通，其实我要说的是：我准备很快给学校领导和国安部领导写信，要求组织出面花费聘请国外高级专家来当面审核我的论文，允许我当面解释。若最终证明我是错的，费用由我出，上限是100万人民币。 当然，各位切不要误解，我绝没有兴趣要别人帮我判断。对于我的方法和论文的正确与否，这个世界的任何人都不可能比我更具有判断力。而我确信：我是对的，没有任何疑问！ 同时我也可以这样说，这个世界任何高难度的计算机算法论文（指纯算法，不涉及其他领域的专门知识），只要是中文或英文书写的，哪怕我从未研究过那个领域，我都能很快看懂。 我认为我可以和有资格就我的研究向组织汇报和要求组织出面。
Journal of Mountain Science (JMS)的编委们担任责任编辑，负责稿件管理的任务，其主要职能是邀请审稿人进行同行外审，就文章的具体问题与审稿人和作者联系沟通，归纳总结同行外审的意见后，提出文章的具体处理建议并作出接收、修改或者退稿的建议。由于本刊的编委来自世界各地，无法与他们进行面对面的交流，邮件和网站以及建立的编委QQ群是我们与编委们交流沟通的主要渠道。一旦将稿件分配给编委以后，稿件系统会自动向他发送一封通知信，提醒他们及时到稿件中心去进行相应的操作。在ScholarOne稿件系统提供的邮件模板基础上，我对该通知信进行了修改，主要增加了以下几方面的内容：1）如果无法及时处理该篇稿件，请立即回复邮件，我们根据情况重新分配给其它编辑人员;2）对第一次担任责编的编委，提醒他们到本刊网站下载相应的稿件管理指南（Guides to Editors）; 3)以简洁的形式告知责编邀请审稿人的三条渠道，并在第三条（邀请作者推荐的审稿人）上加了特别提醒。过去，有些责编不清楚情况， 邀请的全是作者推荐的审稿人，而这样的审稿结果，从本刊制订的准则来看是不符合要求的。本刊规定，一篇文章必须邀请作者的审稿人以外的其他专家审稿；可以邀请作者推荐的审稿人但是要核实这些人员的身份以及邮箱的真实性，并且要慎重地审核作者推荐的审稿人的审稿意见。 Dear Dr. Li : Manuscript ID 17-XXXX entitled Slope and extraterrestrial solar radiation changes with the resolution of digital elevation model and the relation between the error of slope (aspect) and that of extraterrestrial solar radiation over rugged terrains with Dr. Ling Yong as contact author has been assigned to you and is currently sitting in your Editor Center at https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal. Please select reviewers for this manuscript by 17-Nov-2017. If, for any reason, you are unable to serve as Editor for this manuscript, please notify me immediately so that I can reassign it. If it is the first time for you to act as the editor to manage the manuscript, please read the Guides to Editors (ppt or pdf) at http://jms.imde.ac.cn/for-editors first. When assigning reviewers, you can use the three sources to invite reviewers: 1. The MS system recommends 2. You invite 3. Author recommends (only as the last resort! Be cautions of those fake reviewers!) Once you have selected the reviewers you should go ahead and invite them. Sincerely, Journal Admin Journal of Mountain Science Editorial Office jms@imde.ac.cn -------------------------------------------------------- Journal of Mountain Science Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment,Chinese Academy of Sciences P.O.Box 417 No.16,South Sect.2, the 1st Ring Road (Yihuanlu) Chengdu 610041, China Tel:028-85252044 E-mail: jms@imde.ac.cn QQ: 1540631665 QQ Group: 232951752 (Journal of Mountain Science) http://jms.imde.ac.cn http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences+and+geography/journal/11629 http://mall.cnki.net/magazine/magadetail/SDKB201701.htm About the Journal The Journal of Mountain Science（JMS）, an international English journal on mountain sciences, was founded in 2004 and has been included in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) since 2007. The SCI impact factor of JMS is 1.016(Source: JCR, 2016). JMS is supervised by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), sponsored by the Chengdu Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment (CAS), published by Science Press China, and exclusively distributed by Springer outside Mainland China. JMS is devoted to research on mountains and their surrounding lowlands - ecoregions of particular global importance, with a particular emphasis on the important highl ands/ mountains.
投到Journal of Mountain Science 的文章利用气温计算山区裸地地表温度的新方法（New methods for calculating bare land surface temperature over mountainous terrain） 在第一轮审稿时共收到三份审稿意见, 三份意见均较为详细，所有审稿意见加在一起有四页多，意稿人对这种简单的新方法均表现出浓厚的兴趣并给予了充分的肯定，同时提出了很多具体的建议以便作者进一步修改和完善。三位审稿人分别来位于意大利的欧洲研究院（Academia Europaea）高山研究所， 意大利那不勒斯第二大学,西班牙国家研究委员会比利牛斯生态研究所。 在这里贴出这三份审稿意见的目的是希望国内的学者能够从中学习到一些撰写审稿意见的方法, 同时, 给从事相关研究的国内学者提供一些合作交流的线索。 第一位审稿人先对文章进行了总体评价，然后针对文章各章节给出相应评价和具体意见，这样的审稿意见让作者更容易理解，在修改时也更容易操作。 Reviewer 1 Accademia Europea, Institute for Alpine Environments The manuscript is well written. However, it proposes a rather simple method compared with the major literature on the field. The method could be useful in data-poor regions. I would have suggested reject in a major journal with very high IF, but I think good works, even if made with a few data and simple approaches, deserve a publication in a good journal as JMS. General comments : The article proposes a new methodology to improve the estimation of land surface temperature (LST) over mountainous terrain, on the basis of topographic information and air temperature. The proposed method is very simple and based on few, easily available data. Performances are relatively poor, compared to other, more complex, methods. Nevertheless, the method improves significantly results, compared to an approach based only on air temperature. The method could be useful in data-poor regions. The paper is very well written and results are well supported by observations. However, there are several aspects in the methodology that can be improved. I understand that the Authors want to keep the method simple and with little data requirements (only T air observations), but several improvements are possible that could, at least, be mentioned as possible future developments in the Discussion. In particular: •Only bare soil is considered. However, as acknowledged, vegetation strongly influences LST. How vegetation can be considered in the method? •A better validation of the method could be given by remote sensing data. Why do not validate the model also against such a data? •Effect of long wave radiation and could cover. Simple methods are available to infer long wave radiation to further improve the method. I think the paper is in line with the aims and targets of JMS. To conclude, I suggest a moderate revision for the paper. Specific comments: Introduction Introduction is well written: I suggest underlining the importance of LST estimation in mountain regions for processes as permafrost. I suggest also mentioning the possibility of estimating LST by proximal sensing (thermal cameras). Site and data Here I have a major methodological observation. Did you measure LST just below the soil or at the soil surface? In the last case, how has been the instrument sheltered from the Sun? Incorrect solar sheltering and simply the fact that the instrument is made in a different material with respect to the soil, can alter observation of several K. Please explain better the experimental setup. Methodology If a temperature lapse rate of -6.5 C/100 m is always assumed, large errors in Ta estimation are possible. In fact, over long time scales this assumption is safe, but locally and at the instantaneous time scale, lapse rate could change a lot (i.e. morning thermal inversion, etc …) In the methods, the diurnal Ta excursion is used. The method performs also worse for cloudy days. This could be because the effects of incoming long wave radiation from the clouds are not take in account. Way do not consider simple parametrizations as the one of Brutsaert (1975) and following modifications for clouds? Brutsaert, W. (1975). On a Derivable Formula for Long-Wave Radiation from Clear Skies. Water Resour. Res., 11(5), 742–744. Validation Given the simplicity of the method, it works relatively well, even below pefromances of more complex methods. A better validation of the method could be given by thermal cameras observations or by MODIS (500 m resolution) LANDSAT LST (60 m resolution) observations. The latter are available for free. Why do not validate the model also against such a data Reviewer 2 Seconda Università di Napoli, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Design, Edilizia e Ambiente The paper proposes a simple method to calculate bare soil surface temperature from air temperature measurements. The topic is of interest for the readership of JMS, as soil surface temperature affects several processes occurring at soil surface, such as soil-atmosphere energy and water exchange, snow melt etc. The manuscript is clearly organized, but the English language must be improved with the help of a native speaker (for instance, there is continuously skipping from present tense to past tense, that should be homogenized throughout the manuscript). Although the proposed method could be useful for practical applications, the presentation of the results does not allow the reader to judge if the drawn conclusions are actually supported by the data. In particular, after describing the proposed mathematical relationships allowing calculation of soil temperature from air temperature, solar elevation and land slope and aspect angles, the authors make their discussion by comparing the obtained results only with the naive assumption of considering soil surface temperature equal to air temperature, and conclude that their model is closer to actual measured soil temperature. I have several concerns about this line of evaluating model performance: - I wonder if this kind of comparison is enough to draw the conclusion that equations (1) and (2) are suitable for estimating LST. The authors should provide more information about the errors of the model, e.g. at what time of the day, and in what part of the year, the discrepancies between model and measurements are maximum? - Would it be possible to introduce the effect of cloud cover to further improve the performance of the equation? - To what extent the errors still present in the modeled LST affect the estimates of water and energy exchanges at soil surface? - Although the authors state that other existing approaches for estimating soil surface temperature do not provide data at the required spatial resolution, some comparison with the performance of other models should be made. - The presented data refer to high altitude sites, and the authors, in their introduction, mention permafrost dynamics as one of the possible fields of application of the method; nonetheless, there is no mention to insulation snow effect on the relationship between air temperature and soil temperature (see Wang et al., 2016, for a recent review of existing models). Given all these issues, me recommendation is that the manuscript is not acceptable in its present form, and major revisions are needed before re-evaluating it for possible publication in JMS. References Wang W, et al., 2016 Evaluation of air–soil temperature relationships simulated by land surface models during winter across the permafrost region, The Cryosphere, 10: 1721–173 Reviewer 3 Spanish Research council, CSIC, Pyrenean Institute of Ecology Dear Editor, The manuscript deals with a research that is rather simple, but may result useful for other researchers and, hence, to be of interest for JSM. Below I indicate a short number of comments that may facilitate the lecture of the manuscript and also some questions that authors should consider before being accepted the manuscript. Comments to the Author The manuscript New methods for calculating bare land surface temperature over mountainous terrain test two equation to obtain bare land suface temperature in mountain areas. Analyses are rather simple and the results are depicted very briefly. In general, I think that this topic may be of interest for different field of research in mountain areas (ecology, erosion, etc) and hence of interest for Journal of Mountain Science. Below I indicate a number of comments that authors should address and/or clarify in a revised version: 1- In the abstract all acronyms should be introduced with the full name for better understanding. 2- Figure captions should be reworked to be self-explanatory. In its current form they do not result very informative if you do not read the full manuscript. 3- The section Validation includes the full results. I would move the first paragraph to methods, and the rest to a results section. 4- An important question is that authors are correlating two series (observed and simulated data) with a very strong seasonality, that always will lead to spuriously increase the correlation values. I think that error estimators should be provided to series with the seasonal signal removed, or alternatively present the error estimators for each month, removing in this way the seasonal cycle. 5- In relation with comment 4, I think it would be of interest to show if the equations work better or worse in different times of the year, so providing (and discussing) error estimators for each month would be of interest. 6- It would be of interest stress the RMSE as a percentage of average Temperature to have an idea which % of error are associated to both equations ( a standardized RMSE). 6- What about snowpack? Were the study sites covered by snow? How did it affect the analysis? 7- Perhaps, it would be good to discuss how these equations may work on bare rock instead of bare soils. Probably, it will be necessary to use completely different parameters as differences between air temperature and surface will be much larger.
作为一名从事多年期刊编辑工作的人员，每天都在审稿、改稿、校稿以及与作者、审稿人、编委、数据库出版商、编辑出版发行相关的各种人员打交道中不知不觉地过去。每天的事务很多，但似乎都很琐碎。将每日的琐碎事务择要记录下来，或许可以让同行或者与期刊相关的人员管中窥豹，通过这些细枝末节了解期刊编辑工作的方方面面。 今天先从上周四的一日琐事中摘录部分内容： 1. 西班牙的作者来信说，他们文章中有两位作者 没有 申请过orcid号，他们也不想申请，因为他们不是专门从事科研工作的（Two authors don′t have ORCID and they don′t want to have it）。 由于Journal of Mountain Science自2015年起要求所有作者提供orcid号，国内作者可以方便地从中国科学家在线（http://iauthor.las.ac.cn）或者orcid官网（http://www.orcid.org）申请到，大部分作者都会按要求提供每位作者的orcid，部分国外的作者先是磨一阵不想提供， 经我们的解释说明后都会去申请了orcid。以下是我给这位作者的回信： ----------------------- Dear Mr. XXXX, Autohor's ORCID provides a persistent digital identifier that distinguishes you from every other researcher and, through integration in key research workflows such as manuscript and grant submission, supports automated linkages between you and your professional activities ensuring that your work is recognized. The Web of Science database also provide retrieval item with one's orcid number. The Journal of Mountain Science requires every author should provide his/hertheir ORCID numbers from the first issue of 2015. The authors can apply for a orcid number at http://www. orcid.org very conveniently with your email addresses. So please ask the rest two authors to apply for their orcid numbers. Best regards XXX --------------------- 邮件发出后，通讯作者很快就发来另外两位作者的orcid号。 2. 给一位希望做本刊审稿人和科学编辑的人员写信。通过近几年国内国际的大力宣传推荐和编委编辑人员的努力，本刊在国际山地科学领域已经拥有了一定的知名度，也成为从事山地科学研究的科研人员极为乐意投稿的目标期刊，能够成为本刊的编委对很多学者而言是极大的荣誉。我们一般从审稿人中挑选优秀的学者作编委。 我们也经常收到像下面这位这样的海外学者发来的希望做本刊审稿人或者成为本刊编委会成员的学者的来信。 ------------------ Dear Sir/Madam, Good day. I am XXX. PhD Research Fellow of Agriculture and Food Sciences at The University of Queensland, Australia. I am very keen to get involved with editorial process such as reviewer, member of editorial board role of your prestigious journal. Currently I am Reviewer of Ecological Indicator (an Elsevier Journal, IF-3.19), Land Use Policy (an Elsevier Journal, IF: 2.76), Journal of Forestry Research (Springer Journal, IF-0.65), Ecosystem Services (an Elsevier Journal, IF-4.30), Small-scale Forestry (Springer Journal, IF-0.81). I hope I can contribute in your journal if I get an opportunity. Further note, I did my BSc and MSc in Forestry. Also did another MSc in Ecohydrology. During my PhD currently I am investigating water use strategies of tropical rainforest trees species of Australia. My Research background is Ecohydrology, Forest Management, Ecosystem Service, Habitat suitability modeling, Biodiversity conservation, Climate change adaptation and mitigation, Natural resources management. I am attaching you my CV. Please check the attachment. Many thanks for your cooperation. XXXX ----------------- 这位在澳大利亚昆士兰大学做Research Fellow的学者寄来了他个人简历(CV)，我认真地看了他的CV，并在 Web of Science中查看了他发表文章的情况，通过 Bing搜索了他的相关信息，了解到来他自孟加拉国，与 我们的一位科学编辑来自同一国家，而且学的是相同的专业， 也许是这位科学编辑将我们期刊介绍给他的 。 我 在稿件系统中为他创建了帐户(可以作为作者和审稿人)，给他发送了稿件系统的帐户信息，并给他回信，感谢他对我们期刊的关注, 并表示请他先做审稿人，我们会从优秀的审稿人中邀请科学编辑和编委！以下是我的回信： ----------------- Dear XXX, Thanks for your interest to be a reviewer or editorial board member. I have created an account for you in the manuscript center of Journal of Mountain Science (https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal). We'll invite you to review papers when we have manuscripts related to your research fields. We usually select Editorial member or Scientific Editor from distinguished reviewers, thus I hope we could include you in the Scientific Editor team next year if you accept our review invitation and have made comments timely and in high quality. Best regards XXXXX ------------------------------------- 3. 文章通过同行外审后正式发表前我们一般会要求作者进行格式修改和补充一些不完整的部分，如orcid号等。今天修改了要求作者进行格式修改的具体要求，增补了一些对图表等更具体的要求。 ----------------------------------- Revision requirements before formal publication Please combine all the necessary parts into one document except the figures and make all the required revision. 1. Title (required) 2. Author(the family names should be capitalized) ( required ) 3. Author affiliation ( required. Countries or regions area must. zip code is better to be added) 4. All authors’orcid and email addresses (required) 5.Abstract (required) 6. Keywords (required) 7. Main body (required). It is generally arranged in this sequence: Introduction, Study Area and Methods or Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, Acknowledgement,References. Please number each section AFTER Introduction. 1) Check the sequence of the figuresand tables mentioned in the text; 2) check whether the figures and the words in the figures are clear enough and the words ( Times New Roman is required ) are correct, and whether the words and the lines are in proportion; 3) check whether the table heads are correct and can be shortened or condensed (to save space). 8.Figures should be in high quality. Words in the figures must be in Times New Roman. Suggested figure sizes are 7-8 cm or 14-16 cm at width with font size in the final print version at 8-9 point. Figures should be saved at a minimum resolution of 600 dpi (dots per inch) at final size. Save all figures in Tiff format and number them sequentially. 9. Acknowledgement( Funding source should be provided ). 9. Reference( required . Doi should be added if that item of reference has one) 10.Supplementary materials can be provided, including documents, videos, pictures,etc.. 11.Numbering each section except the Introduction. The subtitle also should benumbered. The format is like this: 1, 1.1, 1.1.1...; 2, 2.1,2.2, 2.3, … 12 ． Use bright blue color for the cited literature, Figures, Tables and Equations mentioned in the text, and the DOI numbers and links in the Reference. (required). See the published sample paper at http://jms.imde.ac.cn/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=0488cf00-9465-4a41-bc23-4dda177d10c2groupId=21915 13. Read through the article after you make all the revision to make sure every word, phrase and sentence is grammatically and semantically correct. --------------------------------------- 4. 修改JMS网站上的Sample paper, 将文章上传到服务器并在网上做了链接。 发现网上的Sample paper还是去年的格式。本刊今年的版式外观略有变化，如对文中引用的文献，以及图，表，公式，文后的DOI和链接等均采用亮蓝色显示，这样更醒目更突出。期刊的作者指南、稿件模板、刊文样本等等均是作者拟投稿目标期刊时认真研读和仔细模仿的的重要资料，如果期刊的要求发生了变化，均需要及时在期刊网站上修改相关的内容。 5.将一篇已经接收拟在近期发表的工程方面的文章发给编委李老师看，请他看看作者在公式和专业术语的应用方面是否得当。李老师看后认为作者是从事泥沙研究多年的专家，公式的运用和专业术语都没有问题, 主要是语言太啰嗦，而且非常中国化，他对前言部分进行了修改，作者须对全文进行认真修改。而后我通过QQ发给作者修改去了。 6. 一位国外的作者来信报怨我们将他的文章退稿了，我也是JMS的审稿人，期刊对审稿人难道不能有一些优惠政策吗？ 我写信对他给与期刊的支持表示感谢，同时说明期刊的政策要求所有文章均需通过同行外审，一般情况下，我们根据审稿人的意见作出是否刊用的决定。我们在邀请审稿人上确实说了会在文章接收后会优先刊发审稿人的作者的文章，但不是在决定是否刊用上有优惠。
找审稿人不容易，找到海外知名大学的学者审稿更不容易。这不，一位接到邀请信、看了文章摘要后本来同意审稿的国外某知名大学的学者，看到稿件引用的大多数参考文献都是中文文献，于是说他不愿意再审了。 过去我们也曾遇到过类似的情况。审稿人因为文章中引用的大多是中文文献而推荐拒稿的也不在少数。 不是说一篇文章非要将一堆英文参考文献放上去，而是作者的视野是否只是局限在了某一种语言的范围内, 而没有对国际上本领域的相关研究有一个系统的把握。同一个作者类似的内容有可能会同时写了中文文章和英文文章来发表，建议在撰写英文文章时引用此人发表的英文文章，这样便于读者进行延伸阅读，当然也便于审稿人根据引用的参考文献去核实作者所作的研究的新颖性。 ------------------------------ Dear editor, I previously agreed to review Manuscript ID 17-XXXX, but I found that most of cited literature are in Chinese which I am unable to verify. The references (not reference as written in page 9 of the manuscript) should have been numbered. I counted 19 references in Chinese out of 27 total. As such I feel I am unable to carry on reviewing this manuscript. My sincere apology. XXXXX Department of Civil Engineering, ABC ----------------------- 特此说明，Journal of Mountain Science 是英文刊，作者和读者对象面向全世界，因此，海外的审稿人对论文中引用的文献文献有要求是正常的。
2017年注定又是忙碌的一年，审稿已经成为我日常工作的一部分。去年审过43篇，今年我已经审稿论文 近 10篇。 因为时间有限或者没有空暇，据审也许会经常发生。 审稿多了，审稿人也会熟知一些作者的研究方向、工作态度和研究层次。审稿人或许会有自己的黑名单，哪些作者的稿件将会被据审。稿件如人品，不能有一丝马虎。本人也是如此要求团队年青教师和学生的。如果不严格要求自己，不知不觉中你被审稿人打入冷宫，将来找不到你论文的审稿人。 上周一刚刚提交基金本子，周二博士生面试，周三完成一项国际标准翻译校对工作，周五、周六连续审理2篇稿件。1篇小修、1篇据稿。中间一天还接到国内某编辑部打来的催审电话。 今天周一又收到某国际期刊邀请审稿信。我没有在此期刊投稿过，过去也没有审过稿，在网上搜索才知为SCI刊物。 根据编辑部提供的链接，下载稿件，快速浏览后，觉得稿件质量太差，作者缺乏基本的科研和写作素养。于是决定据审。仅据审还不行，在网站上还得填写理由和推荐其他审稿人。审稿人没有推荐，只是简单回复了一下理由： I wouldn't like to review this manuscript because of the poor quality. It is a waste of my free time. Last week I have reviewed several papers. I perfer to review a high quality manuscrpit at any time. 链接： 2016审稿目录 遇见好文如见美女,品好文如同中秋赏月-中秋审稿随想 被编辑部追着跑的审稿人 审稿小结 审稿心得：复制或剽窃？后果很严重！ 上火！一篇文章，二个期刊，三次审稿！ 愤怒！审稿遇到一稿多投！ 劣质稿件坏透了审稿人的心情！
过度科研下的审稿 以下转载的内容，不知道知否合理？感谢您的指教！ 过度科研下的审稿 精选 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-100379-1003054.html 发表时间： 2016-09-15 最近接了个活。 原来一个同事收到pra的 审稿邀请，他懒得审，给编辑介绍我。 随便浏览了一下文章，感觉完全不在我的领域（只是有个概念我有点经验），但是我还是毫不犹豫接了 ，15天内 给意见。 说实话，没打算花时间研究这个文章是否达到了pra的“高标准”，是否 包含了 enough new and significant physics to warrant publication in the Physical Review 。本着文责自负的原则，无条件支持发表。为什么不呢？反正作者还引用了我文章嘛。 有人会说你这样是否太不负责，太不严谨。 万一文章有错呢？ 错了又如何？！能够错出个惊天动地？ 张益唐声称自己在栾生素数上有重大进展时，他的文章是对是错关系重大，但是这种文章错了又如何？ 当年拉普拉斯从柯西那里学到了级数收敛的概念后，紧张得要死，生怕自己的天体力学一书里有错。但是这种文章你怕它有错干什么？它就讨论不到那么基本而重要的问题。 确实是个很基本的概念，但是大家认识已经很清楚。可是，nature，science，prl就是喜欢这种有噱头的东西，在编辑操纵下，这类文章很好发。于是各路人马积极跟进，搞各种矫揉造作的设计，附带不负责任地吹嘘有何种潜在应用前景。 喜欢给杂志分三六九等的人可能会说，即便是对的，也得考虑下是否达到pra的档次吧。 pra的档次有多高？ 对绝大部分人而言，一个文章的价值或者说档次，很大程度上来自其所在杂志。只要文章发在pra上，那 它自然会被读者赋予相应的价值和档次 。 在马普的时候，跟N同学讲一个问题，他很不屑。结果我一google，发现一个澳大利亚博士后就那个问题发了2个prl， http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3400 http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.1451 再跟他讲，他立马觉得意义重大。 感觉当下全世界都进入到了过度科研的境地。因为各种现实压力，科研工作者制造了无数文章。这些文章不少都发表在档次不低的杂志上。可是，观察我自己的做法，观察我收到的那些审稿意见，有多少文章不是在马桶上被审的？有多少文章被推荐发表的理由不是，这个文章引用了我？ 声明1：过度 科研这个词不是我发明的，是物理所一位前辈的贡献。作为一个过度科研的实践者（自愿或被生活所迫），这个词击中了我的灵魂。 声明2：写 这个博文还想说的是， 现行的封闭的审稿制度真的该被颠覆了！！！！！开放审稿吧！ 这里顺便放个广告： To celebrate Peer Review Week , we will be holding a webinar on September 19 th at 11AM GMT to discuss the future of peer review. The webinar will consist of four 10-15 minute talks from each of the attending speakers followed by an open discussion. The list of speakers include: Andrew Preston , Founder of Publons Katie Ridd , Senior Editor at Nature Communications Alexander Naydenov , Co-founder of PaperHive Stephanie Dawson , CEO of ScienceOpen Some of the general themes explored in the webinar include: Importance of recognising the efforts of editors and referees in peer review, and especially ‘open review’ The value of continuing discussion after research is published (i.e., the treatment of peer review as one step in a multi-stage process) Innovative technologies and approaches to open and post-publication review Building on the SPOTON themes for the year, improving peer review in practice and increasing experimentation and innovation To sign up, please register here . The link to the webinar is in the event registration page. We will use the GoToWebinar software. Reminder links will be sent before the event starts. If you have any questions, you can contact jon.tennant@scienceopen.com
近日，Elesvier公司发明了一个新系统 My Elsevier Reviews Profile BETA ， 可登记和查询审稿记录，并颁发相关证明。因这两年为《 Surfafce Coatings Technology 》审稿数位列前10位，被授予 Outstanding Contribution in Reviewing （审稿杰出贡献奖）。 You are awarded this status as you are within the top 10 th percentile of reviewers for the Journal, in terms of the number of manuscriptreviews completed in the last two years. For Surface Coatings Technology , this meant a minimum of 2 reviews in two years. View details for your review record and to claim your free certificate and reviewer badge.
Reviewers Acknowledgement Peer reviewers are key to advancing scholarship and contributing to the quality of papers that will be published on SCIE-indexed journal Materials Research Innovations . We would like to thank the following reviewers who have provided a technical review for at least one paper for this Conference. Many of our reviewers contributed their expertise to more than one paper. We recognize the time commitment these individuals have made in agreeing to review papers and appreciate the impact that their efforts have had on the published papers. Volunteers like these individuals are essential to assuring the Conference and the journal’s published manuscripts of high quality and lasting value. Thank you to our dedicated reviewers for your contributions. A. Jegan M.C.Somasekhara Reddy A. L. Xia M.P.Ormad A. M. Shanmugharaj Ma Wenhui A. Reyes-Rojas Ma, Guokun A.K. Chaubey Ma, Xian Wei Abbas Madani Maati Ahmed Abe, Takeshi Mackay, David Thomas Abidov, Amir Magalhães, Fernão D Adel Husain Mahendran Kandaswamy Adrian Circiumaru Malaquias, João C. Agarwal, Swarna Malin Åkermo Agata Przekora Mambote, C. Ahmad Baharuddin Abdullah Manish Kr. Priydarshi Ahmad Partovi Meran Manoel Ribeiro Da Silva Ahmed Mohamed Khalil Manoj Gupta Ahmed Murtala Musa Manoj Kumar Ahmed Tawfik Ahmed Omar Manuela La Rosa Ahmed, Nivin M. Mao, Jianghui Ahmet Tuncan Mao, Shaolin Ahmet Yonetken Maosheng Cao Ahmet Yönetken Marco Coïsson Akramifard, H.R. Margarita Sanchez Alaa Bahgat Maria Gimenez Lopez Alaa M. Rashad María Luppo Alahgholipour Omrani Arash Maria Roulia Alan Dyer Maria Sveda Alann Andre Marián García Prieto Albert Oszkó Mariana A. Fazio Alborz Shokrani Mariehélène Tuilier Aleksandar Maksimovic Marina Vlasova Aleksander Lisiecki Marincas Olivian Alessandro Chiolerio Marios S. Katsiotis Alex Ignatiev Marisa Pecce Alexander Shimkevich Marlin Ramadhan Baidillah Ali Ahmed Benyahia Masakazu Terai Ali Shanaghi Massimo Rogante Ali, Arshid M Matti Ropo Ali, Kamran Shavarebi Mazinani, Babak Ali, M. M. Y. Meddah, Mohammed Seddik Allahyarzadeh, M.H. Mehdi Soltani Altenbach, Holm Meiyan Li Amir Abidov Meng Lijun An Verberckmoes Meor Othman Ana Serrano-Lotina Metin Davraz Ana Velosa Miao, Weidong Anatoly Resnyansky Mikhail Fedorov Andrea Milanese Mikko Hokka Andreea Matei Milos Jerman Andrei Victor Sandu Minchaca M., J.I. Andrés Sotelo Minea, Alina Adriana Andrey Belyakov Miotello, Antonio Andrzej Posmyk Miroslav Slouf Andy Slifka Miroslaw Bonek Anna J. Dolata Mirta I. Aranguren Anne Mertens Mitiko Yamaura Antonio Lecuona Miyaji, Hirofumi Aphrodite Ktena Moamen S. Refat Arash Yazdani Mohamad Kamarol Aravindan, Sivanandam Mohamed Akbi Arie Wardhono Mohamed Alsharef Arkamitra Kar Mohamed Alwaeli Arne Röttger Mohamed F. M. Fahmy Arnold Chien-Liang Lin Mohamed Ismail Arnout Imhof Mohammad Hossein Allahyarzadeh Arzu Yakar Mohan V. Ashish Kumar Shukla Mohd. Mustafa Albakri Bin Abdullah Asik, Emin Erkan Mohsen Ben Haha Asim Shahzad Monika Michalska Asuncion Garcia Escorial Monis Kazmi Aurelien Perron Mori Hisashi Aw, K.C. Muhammad Baseer Haider Azlin Osman Muhammad Safwan Bin Hamzah B. S. Sindu Muhammad Sami Hasan B.Ram Rathan Lal Mula, Suhrit Badawi, Emad A. Muraca, Diego Bai Jicheng Murat Aydin Baishu Wang Murilo Daniel De Mello Innocentini Baitoul Mimouna Musen Li Bao, Hua Muthu Raman Baoguo Han Mykhalenkov, Kostiantyn Basta, Altaf H. N. Nowrouzi Basta, Altaf H.S N.Alagumurthi Baykal, A. Nadimicherla Reddeppa Beate Oswald-Tranta Nagaraju Ganganagappa Beatrice Pomaro Nageswara Rao Behrad Koohbor Nantung, Tommy Behzad Niroumand Napitupulu R A M Bekir Yalçın Natalya Makarova Bela Shanina Nayeli Camacho Belyakov, Andrey Nelfa Wahab Betiha, Mohamed A. Ngoc, Le Kim Bhingole Pramod P. Nijesh K. James Bill Davids Nikoiloz Chikhradze Bin Xu Nima Zohhadi Bingxun Wang Niphadkar, P.S Blaž Likozar Niroumand, Behzad Bo Wang Nishiumura, Tomoyoshi Boakye Solomon Norbert Gebbeken Bora Kalkan Norris, Pauline Brytan, Zbigniew O. Smorygo Bulent Aktas O. Thompson Mefford C Sirisathitkul O. Zivotsky C. J. Panchal Oleg Novodvorsky Cai, Yanzhi Oliver C. Mullins Cameliu Himcinschi Ondrej Kovarik Camilla Colla Osamu _Sugiyama Cangji Shi Oscar Jaime Restrepo Baena Cao, Giacomo Osiris W. Guirguis Cao, Junyi Othman, A.R. Carlos Garcia-Mateo Özgül Keleş Carlos Roberto Grandini P. Arun Carlsson Torbjörn P.B. Barman Caroline Sunyong Lee P.K. Das Carosena Meola P.K. Ghosh Carosena Meola P.Shanmughasundaram Carron Denis P.Shanmughasundaram Cedric Boissiere Pan Yunxiang Chang Sung Seok Pascual Muñoz, Pablo Changfeng Yu Patrascu, Marcela Elisabeta Barbinta Chao Yang Patrícia Lima Chao Zhang Paul Bowen Chen, Bill Paule Bekampiene Chen, Changle Pei Wang Chen, Jianwei Peiqing La Chen, Jiuntai Penghui Zhang Chen, Lai Pengkun Hou Chen,Pinghu Pentti Karjalainen Cheng, Haifeng Pentti Karjalainen Cheng, Xin Peter Van Cheng, Z. Petr Valášek Chengbin Shi Philipp Just Chia-Chi Shih Pierluigi Colombi Chi-Hsien Huang Pierre-Colin Gervais Chitnarong Sirisathitkul Piotr Gębara Chiyen Huang Piotr Kustrowski Christophe Craey Plesu Nicoleta Chun Qing Polyxeni Vourna Chunhua, Cao Prabhu, T. Niranjana Cifuentes, Héctor Prasanna Bhonge Claude Esling Prashant Kumar Cooreman, Steven Puga, H Corrado Fidelibus Pushpaka Samarasingha D V Kurmude Qi, Jianquan Dagoberto Santos Qiang Zeng Daisuke Barada Qiao, Liying Damian Janicki Qiao, Yang Dandan Jin Qijie Xu Daniel Dias-Da-Costa Qijin Zhang Danmei Yu Qilin Cheng Danuta Olszewska Qin Fang Danying, Zuo Qin,Yi Dariusz Fydrych Qing Quan Liang Dawood, M.K Qing Sun Dawson, J. Qing Wang De Kloe, R. Qingsen Meng Deniz Polat Qingxin Yao Dermot Brabazon Qiyue Shao Dewei Deng Qunli Zhang Dhafer Abdulameer Shnawah R Coustel Dhafer Abdulameer Shnawah Rade Vignjevic Diego Correa Rajender Kumar Dinesh Pathak Ramana, M. Venkata Ding Songdong Ratchadaporn Puntharod Ding, Wei Ravazzoli, Claudia L. Doina Hritcu Rezaei, Behrooz Donato, Tatiani Ribeiro, M.C.S. Dong Heng Richard Phillips Dong Weixia Ridho Bayuaji Dong, Yongping Ridzuan, A.R.M. Dongchu Chen Robert J. Nemanich Dongxue Hao Robert Widmann Dragos Buzdugan Roberto Fernandez Martinez Du, J. Rodak, Kinga Dubravka Milovanovic Rohit Kumar Gupta Dubravka Milovanović Rongchang Zeng Dvorák, Karel Roseleena Jaafar Dyzia, Maciej Roselita Fragoudakis Ece Kok Yetimoglu Rubesa Domagoj Elena Colombini Rui Costa Elisabeta Barbinta Ruitao Wen Emanuele Castagna Rujie He Eugene Wong Ryoji Inada Ewa Napieralska Rzychon, T. F. Martin S R Chowdhury Falahati Ahmad S. Chen Fan Dong S. Gopalakannan Fan, Ruiqing S. J. Pantazopoulou Fan, Yiqun S. Legutko Fang, Da Ran Şaban Patat Farid Haddadi Sajjad Taravati Fei Jin Salem S Abu Amr Feng Ma, Hui Salih Durdu Feng, B. Salzman, J. Feng, Youli, Sandip Sudhakar Patil Fernando Lavoie Sapate, Sanjay G. Fernão D. Magalhães Sarojini Swain Filippo Ubertini, Satoki Tada Filonenko V.P Seiichi Taruta Finkelstein Arcady Semiha Akçaözoğlu Fouad Abudaia Sen, Ranjan Francesca Costanzo Seo, Junwon Francesco Biccari Sergio Gonzalez Sanchez Francesco Leone Serguei Palto Francisco José Gotor Martínez Severi Anttila François Drolet Seyed Saeid Rahimian Koloor Frank Kern Sha Fei Frank Walther Shan Jiguo Frantisek Lukac Shanhui Hsu Fu Yucan Shanmugarajan, B. Fu, Yanshu Shao, Jian Hua Fuat Okumus Shaojiu Yan Fuming Wang Shaopeng Wu G. Sasikala Sharmin Reza Chowdhury G.V. Kurlyandskaya Shen Linfang Gain, Asit Kumar Shen, Houfa Gamal R. Saad Sheng Lu Ganesh, B.K.C Shengfu Yang Gang Xie Shengjie Liu Ganjkhanlou, Yadolah Shengming Jin Ganna Stovpchenko Shengyu Fang Gao Peng Shi Zengmin Gao Shanmin Shi, Haifeng Gao, Pengzhao Shia Chung Chen García, Alvaro Shibin Tang Gary Raftery Shibing Ni Georgios Savaidis Shiming Chen Giampiero De Cesare Shiraz Labib Gianluca Montenegro Shiva Salem Gill, Simranpreet Singh Shui, Guoshuang Gillich, Gilbert Rainer Shujuan Hou Giorgio Tosi Shukla, Raju Gle, Philippe Shuning Zhang Goia, Tamiye Simone Shuokr Qarani Aziz Gong Zhang Shutong Yang Gong, Hongyu Shuxin Qu González Albuixech, V.F. Shuxin Qu Gordana Markovi Shyam S. Agrawal Graça Rocha Shylesh Pillai Grzegorz Krolczyk Simone Vezzù Gu, Changdong Singh, David J. Gu, Xiuquan Smorygo, O. Gu, Xiuquan Sobha.A.P Guan, Weimin Solouki, Abbas Guanghua Liu Song, Xiaobin Guangming Zheng Sonia Camero Guisheng Wang Souzana P. Tastani Guo Shiju Spears, D.A. Guo Wei Staffan Hertzman Guo, B.H. Stefan Paul Guo, Licheng Stefano Sfarra Guochang Li Stergioudi Fani Guoqing Chen Stergioudi, F. Guoxun Tian Steve Werner Guoxun Tian Steven Cooreman Gustavo Piñeiro Stoic, Antun H.R. Emamian Strozi Cilla, Marcelo H.S. Ranu Su Lijun Haddadi, Farid Su Shuangqing Hagen Klemm Suad Al-Bahar Hai Lin Sujun Wu Haifeng Cheng Sulaiman Abdulkareem Haijun Zhou Sumin Kim Hailong Zhang Sun, I.Wen Hakan Aydin Sun, Jianliang Hamed Mirzadeh Soltanpour Sun, Jie Hamed Sadabadi Sun, Wenping Hamid Reza Akramifard Sun, Zhi Hong Han Min Cheol Suzana Samaržija Jovanović Han Mo Jeong T.Jayakumar Hana Simonova Taiquan Zhang Hao Zhou Takeuchi, Saya Harsha Gudi Tamer M. Alslaibi Harsha R Gudi Tan Yuegang Hasan Gedikli Tanaka, Shinya Hasan Zuhudi Abdullah Tang Jiancheng Hassanein, M.F. Tang, Jianguo Hazra, Sujoy S Tarak Amine Hc Vasconcelos Tatjana Volkov Husovic He Zeming Taufiq Khairi He, Hanbing Taweepreda, Wirach He, Xiliang Tekao Wu He, Zeming Thian Eng San Hein Möller Tian Hongwei Heinz Palkowski Tian, Xiaoxia Hemang Patel Tian, Zhenhua Hexing Li Tian, Zhenhua Hideki Shimada Tian, Zhenhua, Hideyuki Yoshimura Tian, Zhenhua Hirokazu Katsui Tianlong Deng His Hsun Tsa Tianyu Ma Hisashi Mori Timothy Boles Ho, Wenfu Ting Lei Hokamoto Kazuyuki Tingdong Xu Hokamoto, Kazuyuki Tirdad Nickchi Hong, Liang Tjeerd Bollmann Hongjing Wu Tomasz Pietrzak Hongjing Wu Tong Wen Hongxiang Ou Tongsheng Zhang Hristoforou Evangelos Torbjörn Jonsson Hsuan-Kai Lin Torra, V. Hu, Xiaoyun Tseng-Chang Tsai Hu, Xing Tung-Yuan Yung Hua, Z. Tzer-Ming Jeng Huan, Yu Tzu Hsuan Chiang Huang, Junyu Ubolluk Rattanasak Huashan Yang Ubong M. Eduok Huei-Sen Wang Utai Meekum Hugo Faria Uygur, Ilyas Hui Mao Uzair Ahmed Hui Zhang V G Chigrinov Hui, Yan V. Schlosser Huizhen Zhi V.Anilkumar Hutaf Baker V.M. Gun'ko Huyuan Zhang V.Yu.Filimonov Hyoungwook Lee Valérie Pollet I. Uvarova Valeriy Luchnikov I.Sperberga Vanessa Lins Ilyas Uygur Vera Lúcia Othéro De Brito Iolanda Del Prete Verónica Calderón Isidora Cekic-Laskovic Vidyanand Singh Ivan Kazachkov Vijayan, N. Ivan Ristic Vilko Mandić Ivana Barisic Vinicius Veloso Ivana Milanovic Vinoth Kumar Iver Lauermann Vishalakshi J. Vakro Vishwanath Deshmane J. Vakros Vishwanath Deshmane Jackson,Thomas L. Vladimír Čech Jacques Foct Vladimir Uglov Jadwiga Skubiszewska-Zieba Vlastimil Bílek Jaksada Thumrongvut Vodenitcharova, Tania Jakub Karczewski Volker Mohles James Wang Walther, Frank Jane Proszek Gorninski Wang Hao Jang, Eue-Soon Wang Heng Jaroslava Budinski Simendić Wang Keliang Jaroslava Budinski-Simendic Wang Qudong Jaroslaw Jakubowicz Wang Shulan Jesus Cuartero Wang Xiaoyong Jia Yu Wang Xudong Jia Zhou Wang Zhenlong Jiamin Ye Wang, Baomin Jian Chen Wang, Ben Jian He Wang, Dan Jun Jianbo Yin Wang, Dongxue Jianfeng Zhang Wang, Edward H. Jiang Yiming Wang, Linjiang Jiang, Lanying Wang, Qian Jiang, Xian Wang, Qingyao Jiang, Zhongtao Wang, Wenhao Jianglei Fan Wang, Xinghua Jianguo Cao Wang, Yanjun Jianhui Qiu Wang, Yongquan Jiankang Chen Wang, Z. Jianyang Lin Wang, Zhenghua Jiayong Si Wang, Zhenqing Jie He Wang, Zhenting Jin Hu Wei Guo Jin, Zuquan Wei Hengyong Jing Zhang Wei Xie Jing Zhou Weian Huang Jing, Zhou Weiyu Ho Jing-Chie. Lin Wenbin Dai Jingfung Lin Wichan Chuaiphan Jingmei Tao Willian Aperador Chaparro Jinxing Wang Winnefeld, Frank Jiwei Li Wolfgang Löser João Roberto Sartori Moreno Wolfram Calvet Johan Moulin Wong, Franklin Jose M. Bastidas Wu Dongjiang José Manuel Sánchez Moreno Wu Tang Jue Cheng Wu, C.Y. Julita Mrowiec Białoń Wu, Cuilan Julitte Huez Wu, Guohua Jun Deng Wu, Jianjun Jun Li Wu, Jingping Jun Xu Wu, Xiaohua Juncheng Liu Wu, Xiaojing Junfeng Zhu Wu, Zhi Min Junhong Jin Xianbo Shi Junjie Xiao Xiangdong Xu Junwei Zhao Xiangquan Jiao K. Palanikumar Xiangting Dong K. Raghukandan Xianzhong Cheng K.Dinakaran Xiao Peng K.Manikanda Subramanian Xiao, Guangchun Kaishu Guan Xiaobo Zhang Kalevi Kokko Xiaochun Wang Kang Pengchao Xiaohui Wei Kangle Lv Xiaoke Li Kargin, Yu.F Xiaolin Li Kaveh Edalati Xiaowei Yin Kee-Do Woo Xiaoying Li Kefeng Tan Xiaoyun Liu Kenny Vernieuwe Xiaxing Zhou Khadija Nabih Xie, Guoqiang Khairul Nizar Ismail Xie, Ning Khalid Abdalla Xiliang He Khan Shahzada Xin Min Kim, Bu Gi Xinyi Cao Kim, Sanggweon Xiuquan Gu Kirsten Moritz Xu Gao Koblischka, M.R. Xu Haiwei Kongjun Zhu Xu Wang Konsta-Gdoutos, Maria S. Xu Yijun Kostevšek, Nina Xu, Jianguang Kostiantyn Mykhalenkov Xu, Mingzhou Koutsonikolas Dimitris Xu, Ruidong Krishnan Sivaraman Xu, Shunjian Krishnaraj, V. Xu, Tao Krokhalev, A.V Xuanlun Wang Krzysztof Żaba Xue, Dong Kuang-Hung Tseng Xuwen Liu Kulbhushan Joshi Yan Chen Kumar Natesaiyer Yan Jun Kumar, Prashant Yan Yuncheng Kumpaty, Subha Yan Zhang Kun Fu Yan Zhao Kun Yao Yan, Xiaoqian Kunihiko Tanaka Yáñez-Limón, J.M. Kunjukunju Joy Yanfang Wang Kuo Tian Yang Huashan Kyung-Min Kim Yang Meijun L. González-Legarreta Yang Wei L.Gunawan Yang Yinfei La, Peiqing Yang, Jianfeng Lahiri, Abhishek Yang, Ruisong Laima Luo Yang, Shoufeng Larsen, Mikkel Juul Yang, Zongxian Lawanwong, Komgrit Yangsi Liu Le Guyadec Fabienne Yangsi Liu Lee, In Seop. Yanming Shen Lee, Jim Yansong Zhang Lee, S.K Yanzhi Cai Lefticariu, Liliana Yao, Xiaofei Lei Li Yaowu Shi Lei, Gang Yaroslav Urzhumov Lembit Kommel Ye, Enyi Leszek Borkowski Yeon-Wook Kim Li Chen Yi Liu Li Xiang Yimin Li Li, Bei Gang Yongbo Wu Li, Gang Yongcai Zhang Li, Gang Yongchang Liu Li, Guodong Yonghui Hu Li, Li Xia Yongsheng Li Li, Lijuan Youfen Li Li, Lu Hua Youli Feng Li, Shaolin Young Jong Kang Li, Weiguo Yu Wei Li, Xiao Ming Yu, Y.D Li, Yuncang Yuan Shi Li, Zhaolong Yuan-Gee Lee Li, Zheng Bang Yuanzhou Xi Lianchong Li Yubo Zuo Liangliang Li Yue Zheng Liao, X.Z Yueying Wu Lifeng Yan Yurchenko N.Yu Lijun Wang Yury Minaev Limousy, L. Yusheng Chen Lin Shuxia Yuying Wu Lin Tang Zaharaddeen N. Getso Lin, Yinghua Zaiji Zhan Ling Xiao Zain, Asna Mohd Lingkun Chen Zdenek P Bazant Lingxia Li Ze Li Liou, Chiou Lin Zhang Jianrong Liu Fusheng Zhang Ming Liu Mingqi Zhang Yong Liu Wenbin Zhang, Bo Liu Xiubo Zhang, Boping Liu Yanhui Zhang, Chunyu Liu Yongli Zhang, Haiying Liu Zhiyong Zhang, Hou'an Liu Zongde Zhang, J.F. Liu, Chun Zhang, Jun Liu, Deyi Zhang, Li Liu, F. Zhang, Rui Liu, Heping Zhang, Shenghai Liu, Huan Zhang, Shuyuan Liu, Ji Ping Zhang, Xiaobo Liu, Jinjie Zhangkai Zhou Liu, Jun Zhao, Liqing Liu, Peng Zhao, Ping Liu, Shimin Zhao, Tiansheng Liu, Xiaochao Zhao, Xiaokun Liu, Xiubo Zhao, Xiaokun Liu, Yaqiang Zhao, Xinbing Liu, Yitao Zhaoquan Chen Liu, Yongchang Zhdanov, Vladimir P. Liu, Yunguo Zhen, Yan Zhong Liu, Yuzhang Zhendong Shi Longcheng Liu Zheng Guoqu Longfei Chang Zheng, Biju Lorenzo Brezzi Zheng, G.M. Lu, Hui Zhifeng Liu Lu, Lin Zhiliang Wang Lu, Yubin Zhiming Zhou Lubos Pazdera Zhong Gu Luciano Afferrante Zhongzheng Yang Lucie Bartonova Zhou, Hongqing Luis Chazaro Zhou, Yifeng Luo Xian Zhu, Jianfeng Luo, Hui Zhu, Jing Luo, Yunbiao Zicheng Zhang Lysak, V.I. Zielinski, Andrzej Lyudmila Turyanska Zoe Barber M. Rafatullah Zou Jian M. Taouinet Reviewers Acknowledgement.pdf
24-May-2016 Dear Dr ***: The above manuscript, entitled ****** has been revised and resubmitted to***. You were kind enough to review the original version of this paper, and I would be grateful if you would kindly agree to re- review it to see if the changes you requested have been made - if you agree to review, we would hope to receive your comments on the paper within 60 days. The most recent abstract appears at the end of this letter. Please let me know as soon as possible if you will be able to accept my invitation. To do this please either click the appropriate link below to automatically register your reply with our online manuscript submission and review system, or e mail me with your reply. Agreed: ****** Declined:****** Should you accept my invitation to review this manuscript, you will be notified via e-mail about how to access Manuscript Central, our online manuscript submission and review system. You will then have access to the manuscript and reviewer instructions in your Reviewer Centre. I realise that our expert reviewers greatly contribute to the high standards of the Journal, and I thank you for your present and/or future participation. Sincerely, *** *** ***
Share a portion of a peer-reveiewer's comments on paper entitled Morphometric and Morphotectonic Analysis of XXX Basin of XXX Valley. The reviewer’ comments on how to write an introduction can be a good guide for authors. The paper deals with the tectonic geomorphology of the relatively less studied NW part of the Himalaya. The paper certainly contains some science, but its below the minimum standards of any international publication. In its present form, I cannot recommend publication of the paper, but I strongly recommend that the author(s) thoroughly revise it. The following major issues must be taken into account while revising the paper: 1.The language of the paper is very poor; quite often, it’s very difficult to understand the sentences and their meanings. Therefore, the author(s) should first of all thoroughly revise and correct the language. 2.The author(s) should clearly mention, in the very beginning i.e. the “Introduction” chapter, the very purpose of carrying out this research. In fact the “Introduction” of the paper in is written very vaguely. In order to make it more specific the author(s) should clearly answer the following questions in the “Introduction” of the paper: (i)why the author(s) has/have done this study? (ii)why did he/they select this particular area for this specific research?, (iii)what methodology did he/they adopt for their study? (iv)what outcome do(es) they/he expect from this study? and, (v)what is the importance/contribution of this study? 3.The author(s) must consult recent papers on tectonic geomorphological investigations in different parts of the world in general and Himalaya in particular (e.g. Ahmad et al. Geomorphology2015; Bagha et al. Geomorphology2014; Goswami and Deopa, Z.Geomorph2012; Rachna Raj, J.Asian E Science2012; Ramasamy et al., Tectonophys2011; Agarwal and Sharma, Z.Geomorph2011; Figueroa and Knott, Geomorphology2010; Goswami et al. J.Earth Syst. Sci.2009; Singh and Tandon, Geomorphology2008; Goswami and Pant, Int.Jour.Remote Sensing, 2008; Malik and Mohanty, J.Asian E Science2007; Singh and Tandon, Quart Int. 2006). These papers are immensely useful for the kind of study presented in this paper. The author(s) should redefine the objectives of their study in the light of these newer studies. He/they should give a good summary of these works in the “Introduction” of the paper. 4.The 2nd Chapter of the paper, “Study Area”, is also written very vaguely and doesn’t convey any relevant information about the study area. E.g. @page3 line#30 it is written that “The Ferozpur drainage basin has a course of 51 kilometers…). What does it mean? A drainage basin could have length, width or area, but what is course? Further ahead, @line#34 its written that “the drainage basin gets divided into two branches…” or @ line#37-38 “….. basin joined by a number of streams…..”. It shows that the author(s) has/have several doubts about drainage and drainage basins. The author(s) should realize that not all the readers are familiar with their study area, and, therefore, he/they should give a good and informative account of the regional setting of the area. I, thus, suggest changing this chapter to “Regional Settings”. In this chapter the geological and tectonic setting of the study area should be described with the help of suitable diagrams (e.g. the regional geological map of Middlemiss, 1911, or later modified versions of it), and then the geological setting of the study area should be discussed. Moreover, the kind of figures (Figs 1.1, 1.3 and 1.5) given in the paper won’t work. 5.Its beyond understanding as why the author(s) has/have calculated geomorphic indices for a drainage basin of 6th order stream, when there are very well developed DBs of 5th, 4th, or 3rd streams. Computing the said indices and parameters for smaller, but nearly identical, drainage basins would provide much more detailed information on the tectonic geomorphology of the bigger drainage basin, which these are contained in. The information given in the present form, by taking the entire large basin as one single unit, cannot be considered reliable. It would be better to compute these parameters and indices for DBs of lower order streams (say e.g. 4th order) and then analyze the results (refer to Singh and Tandon, 2008, Agarwal and Sharma, 2011 and Goswami and Deopa, 2012). 6.The authors have calculated mountain-front sinuosity indices for 12 mountain segments, but these segments are not shown on any map. Secondly, they have taken average of these indices, but I don’t understand how this average is going to be useful for an index that has spatial relevance? The authors should better show it on the map and analyze its spatial pattern (refer to Singh and Tandon, Geomorphology2008; Goswami et al. J.Earth Syst Sci2009). 7.The author(s) should then properly analyze/synthesize the information collected from different sources, such as morphometry, geomorphic indices, drainage anomalies, geology etc.and properly discuss it to draw any conclusion. 8.Finally, the author(s) should write a crisp and succinct “abstract” of the work. He/They should refrain from making general statements such as those given in first nine lines of the present abstract.
Dear Dr Guifeng Liu: Recently,I invited you to review the above manuscript, entitled ****** . I have yet to hear from you about this. This e m ail is simply a reminder to respond to the invitation to review. I appreciate your help in accomplishing our goal of having an expedited reviewing process. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any assistance. To respond to the invitation to review, please just click on the link below: Agreed:****** Declined:****** Unavailable:****** If you agree to review, we would hope to receive your comments on the paper within 60days. Sincerely, ****** ******
前几天写了篇博文“ 审一篇 SCI 稿件，整个人都不好了 ”，没有想到被编辑精选，而且引来了不少博友的关注，很多博友都提出了比较中肯的建议，如 29 楼的博友写了这样的评论：“对于一些低级错误，容易修改的不能作为拒搞的理由，审稿不能带个人情绪，文章应该较重创新点等”这些观点我是认同的。还有今天 44 楼的评论：“这也许是一个学生作者第一次投稿，应以鼓励为主，当然写成这样说明导师也没有好好看，或就没有给导师看就投了。可以指出他的错误，拒稿可以，但不能带有指责的情绪，更不能有居高临下的架势，谁都有从不会到会的过程，部分同意 29 楼的评论。”我也是认同的。 鉴于这篇文章有不少人关注，我感觉有必要再写一篇博文说明一下。这里主要强调一下博文与论文评审意见的不同。对于我来说，博文往往带有一定针对性或者倾向性，主要是为了吸引读者的眼球和关注度，当然这并不是我写博的初衷，但既然写出博文还是希望有更多的读者看到。如我的博文标题 ” 审一篇 SCI 稿件，整个人都不好了 ” ，其实审这篇论文，还是有点小激动的，毕竟是第一次审稿，怎么可能整个人会不好了呢？至于为什么要起这样的标题，正如前面所说的为了吸引眼球。 个人认为除非政论性的文章，不应该带感情倾向之外，其他叙述性的文章，还是带情感倾向比较吸引人，所以在接下的博文写作过程中，突出了自己的心情变化。 而论文评审意见是一件严肃的事情，不管作者的文章质量如何，最重要的一点就是尊重作者，以探讨学术问题为主，并且适当地给出一些个人建议，做到公正客观，不夹杂个人情感。 为了说明博文与实际的评审意见不同，现将个人写给作者的评审意见贴出（不知道这是否合适，如不合适请各位博文指出，我会及时将评审意见删掉）。 以下是我写给作者的评审意见： Reviewer Comments Directed to Author(s) 1. The paper presentation requires significant improvement. In its present form, it is difficult to read it. There are many typos, grammar and syntax errors that it is very difficult to enumerate them all. For example : (1) namely the Relative Deadline, Worst Case Execution time etc. - namely the Relative Deadline, Worst Case Execution Time etc (2) The Preemptions helps - The p reemptions help (3) The Preemption threshold Scheduling (PTS) - The p reemption threshold s cheduling (4) The CPPTS algorithm provides ... and The Cyclic Priority Pre- Emptive Threshold scheduling (CPPTS), - before you define the CPPTS, we don ’ t know what is CPPTS . You should denote it before using. (5) Higher priority and lower priority - higher priority and lower priority (6) Each Task is assigned - Each t ask is assigned (7) if the Interrupt latency goes - if the interrupt latency goes 2. The notations or definitions is confusing or ambiguous. Such as: Let ‘ ’ be the list of task set to be served. “ Each task is denoted by “ ” . 3. The authors denote the the average number of preemptions and the maximum number of preemptions , but they are not used in this paper. 4. Most of the references are old. There are many papers on limited preempted scheduling, for example: Jinkyu Lee, Kang G. Shin, Preempt a Job or Not in EDF Scheduling of Uniprocessor Systems. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTERS, 2014. // 2012 24th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time SystemsIEEE, 2010:251-260. // 2013 IEEE 19th International Conference on Embedded and Real-Time Computing Systems and ApplicationsIEEE, 2010:71-80. ... etc. 5. The authors say “The reduction in the relative Deadline reduces the number of preemptions thus reducing the interrupt latency.” But they don ’ t explain how the relative d eadline reduces ? And they don ’ t explain why the relative d eadline reduces can cause in reducing the interrupt latency ? This is very important problem in this paper. 6. How to assign the preemption threshold ? You method has advantage or not compared to the method in (M. Saksena and Y. Wang, ― Scalable real-time system design using preemption thresholds). 7. The proposed CPPTS algorithm uses the buffering time of the higher priority task to serve the tasks of lower priority in a cyclic manner . How to use the buffering time to serve the tasks of lower priority ? before the high priority execution or after the high priority completion? Whether it will effect the feasibility of the algorithm? 8. Although the paper presents a new CPPTS algorithm, this algorithm is compared only to an EDF or RM scheduling algorithm, and not to other limited preemption algorithms. Therefore the comparison is clearly favorable to the algorithm presented. Please compare your algorithms and the experimental results to equivalent preemption algorithms. Such as: // 2012 24th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time SystemsIEEE, 2010:251-260. [4Marko Bertogna and Sanjoy ― Limited Preemption EDF Scheduling of Sporadic Task Systems, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 6, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2010 9. In table 1, TASKSET is ambiguous. The number stands for the number of task set? Or the number stands for the number of task in the task set? If the number stands for the number of task set, How many task in each task set? 10. Can you explain CPU utilization in table 1? Why not use the number of preemptions to evaluate the performance of the algorithm。
最近投到《Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience》的文章 Learning Structure of Sensory Inputs with Synaptic Plasticity Leads to Interference” 终于被录用了。虽然这个期刊算不上很好，我还是非常高兴，因为这篇文章对基于脉冲神经元（spiking neurons）的神经网络模型liquid state machine （LSM）作了深入仿真分析，获得了一些非常有趣的发现。其中最重要的一个是，神经元轴突可塑性（synaptic plasticity)能够帮助LSM学习输入信号（传感输入）中含有的结构信息。一般情况下在LSM这个神经网络模型中引入轴突可塑性之所以不能明显提高模式识别精度是由于不同模式结构之间的干涉使已经获得的输入结构信息又丢失了。 《计算神经科学前沿》是Frontiers开源系列期刊之一。它的审稿方式较为特殊（不清楚这个系列中其它期刊的审稿方式是否一样）-- 审稿人和作者之间采用一种交互式的方式进行问答。审稿人提出审稿意见后会通知作者，然后作者可以登录投稿系统对审稿人的意见进行回复。这个过程可以进行多次。 个人觉得这种审稿方式还是不错的，至少可以避免因为审稿人误解而被拒稿。 J. Chrol-Cannon, Y. Jin. Learning Structure of Sensory Inputs with Synaptic Plasticity Leads to Interference. Front. Comput. Neurosci . doi: 10.3389/fncom.2015.00103 摘要和全文见： http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fncom.2015.00103/abstract
在过去的博文中,我曾多次展示过为Journal of Mountain Science审稿的审稿意见,今天读到一份给本刊的一篇关于根的形态、土壤形态、树木类型对根的锚固特性的影响一文的审稿意见，非常具体中肯，这对作者更好地提高文章质量，在将来的写作中应该注意哪些问题,均具有指导作用。 同时，我觉得这份审稿意见对国内的科学家们在做同行外审方面也有借鉴作用。 审稿切忌粗线条，大而化之，让编辑和作者都无所适从，而应该先做总体评价，再做详细解析,如,文章的数据是否充分，运用的方法是否得当，结果分析和解释是否清楚明白，讨论是否充分并抓住了关键，另外就是写作规范的问题，参考文献的引用是否与本文相关，重要的参考文献是否引用，参考文献的引用是否规范,图表是否清晰明了，与正文是否互相呼应，必须具体举例加以阐述。 ———————————————————————— General Comments This paper reports some interesting observations of variation in tree root morphology and biomass in the field and,using laboratory tests, assesses variation in root tensile strength in relation to root diameter and root anchorage as a function of soil bulk density and moisture content. The authors are probably correct to point out that this is an understudied topic and the data they have collected are useful. The data they have on belowground biomass and root morphology may have more importance than the authors think as they provide information on belowground carbon stocks. Though the paper contains some useful data and the overall experimental design appears sound the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form for X key reasons: 1) Statistical analysis methods and results are not described or reported fully or appropriately. I believe the statistical analysis of the data can be greatly improved. The authors should define key objectives for their analysis that should govern the empirical modelling they complete. 2) The paper lacks organization as currently results are reported in the methods and discussion sections. 3) The results section is poorly-written and really just points readers to tables and figures rather than describing patterns in the data. 4) The discussion section frequently just re-states the results and there is limited effort made to explain the patterns the authors observe or to relate their observations to previous work. 5) I am always hesitant to criticize the writing of those whose first language isn’t English, there is a need for significant improvement in the paper’s clarity. I have provided some specific comments and suggestions below. The authors are welcome to follow my suggestions for improving phrasing but must address the specific comments and queries. Below P= page and L = Line. Line numbers quoted are authors’own. Introduction P1 L27 “reinforcing soil” Suggest “soil stabilization” P2 L28 Change to “understanding the mechanisms…” P2 L29 Change to “…and root-anchorage is important…” P2 L30 Change to “slopes” P2 L30-31 Change to “…attributed soil shear strength to vegetation through its…” P2 L33 Change to “…roots’cross sectional area and…” P2 L34 Change to “…was that it overestimated the…” P2 L37 Change to “An FBM model…” Note that the convention is that use of a/an is based on the sound of the word not whether it is a vowel or constant. In this case the sentence sounds like “An eff bee em…” P2 L39 Change to “…Waldron and Wu et al.models through load…” P2 L41 Change to “…using parameters such as root…” P2 L42-43 Change to “Recently, an RBM model…” P2 L45 Change to “…the estimation of root reinforcement with these models is…” P2 L47 Change to “In past studies, thee ffect of soil properties…” P2 L48 Change to “…in lower shear-strength soil provide…” P2 L48 Change to “…those in higher shear-strength soils…” P2 L51 Change to “Root experienced breakage…” P2 L54 COMMENT “The deformed shape…” This sentence needs clarifying P2 L55 Change to “…root-reinforced soils increases…” P2 L56 Change to “Different soil types…” P3 L59 Delete “(clay soils…etc)” P3 L60 Change to “conditions” P3 L61-63 COMMENT The authors should define“winching”. Might not differences in resistance to winching be related to differences in root morphology between trees growing at the edge and interiorof forest stands? Wind shear stress on trees has previously been shown to influence their root growth. This sections needs careful re-phrasing as it’s difficult to follow. P3 L63 Change to “Soil properties should…” P3 L64 Change to “…effect of dry weight density and water content on the roots’anchorage properties has been less reported” P3 L66 Change to “Researchers have done…” P3 L67 Change to “…in past studies.” P3 L67 Delete “Numerous…laboratory” P3 L68 Change to “…tests using leaning…” P3 L69 Change to “…field, and laboratory pullout tests have been conducted…” P3 L76 Change to “…root anchorage…” P3 L83 “The root anchorage…” Methods GENERAL COMMENTS · Sampling effort is not described for the assessment of root morphology. What species were sampled? Why were these species selected? How many trees were sampled per species? How old were the sampled trees? Why were these particular tree ages/sizes selected?Were the sampled trees all located in homogenous conditions (i.e. slope,aspect,soil type, elevation)? · The authors need to provide some justification for their pullout test methods. Do they feel their results will be more representative of field conditions than the previous studies theycite? · Sampling effort for the “pullouttest” experiment is not defined. How many species were tested? How many tests per species? What was the size of the root fragments tested? What were the soil properties used in the test? P4 L91 QUERY “Beigou forestry field” I’m not sure what a “forestry field” is, do the authors perhaps mean a “field station”? P4 L94-95 QUERY Not sure what you mean by“mus” P4 L97 COMMENT Species list followed by“etc.” but the other species the authors refer to will only be apparent to readers familiar with the system. A more complete description of the forest’s composition and structure is needed P4 L99 Change to “…sampled using the…” and“…excavation method…” Provide a reference for this method P4 L102-103 Change to “…put into sealed bars, transported to the laboratory and stored in a refrigerator…” P4 L106 COMMENT “…soil was fine sandy loam,dark brown with light particles…” This is a rather subjective description of the soil’s colour. Could the authors provide a colour classification using the Munsell system? P4 L108 Change to “root morphology was measured…” P4 L110 Change to “…dry bulk density…” P4 L111 Change to “following oven drying…” P4 L111-112 COMMENT How long were soil samples dried for? Dry weights and water contents do not have any measure of variability associated with them, was only a single sample taken? If so can the authors justify this? On what basis (dry- or wet-weight) is the soil moisture reported? Information on soil properties should probably be placed in previous paragraph after description of soil colour. P5 L115 COMMENT Again, why are there no errors associated with cohesive force and friction angle? Place description ofsoil properties together. Results GENERAL COMMENTS There is little in the results section that actually helps the reader understand what the authors observed. For example,simply stating “The mean root length of five tree species in different layers was calculated as shown in Table 2” does not actually tell the reader anything.The results section should seek to describe patterns in the data (e.g. how did root length vary with depth or between species). The discussion should then seek to explain and compare the patterns one observes. With regards to data analysis the authors have fitted a large number of different regression equations to predict maximum bond force. For example,bond force is predicted based on root diameter with separate regressions for different soil bulk densities. In reality the authors only need to complete two analyses · Examining the effects of soil properties (bulk density and moisture content) and root diameter on bond force for Pinus . The authors should seek to identify the single best model to predict bond force using all three independent variables whilst accounting for colinearity in the predictors and simplifying the model as necessary. · Examining the effect of species and (fixed factor) and root diameter on bond force Both the above models could be constructed using standard linear modelling approaches, should examine the importance of interactions and can use standard model simplification approaches. P6 L133-138 COMMENT “To investigate the root…mean slope angle was 8°.” All of this information on sampling should be located in the methods section. The authors need to define what a “sunny” slope is. Is sunniness related to topography, aspect etc? The authors need to explain why they chose these sizes of tree. Note that species names can be shortened following first mention (e.g. U. pumila ).Note that the authors “estimated” root length they didn’t “calculate” it. P6 L134 Change to “…and diameter at breast height…” P6 L140-143 COMMENT “The roots were divided…80-2500px (S5).” This description of the classification of roots intodifferent size groups should be in the methods. P7 L153-156 COMMENT Most of this section describes the authors’ methods rather than results P7 L157 COMMENT “The regression equation…”statistical methods should be described in the methods section. The authors should briefly justify their analytical approach on the basis of the objectives of their empirical modeling. P7 L161 COMMENT “…regression equation was in good agreement with experimental results.” This is strange phrasing since the equation is based on the experimental results. It might be better to state that the regression model was able to describe a substantial proportion of the variance in the experimental dataset. P7 L162 COMMENT “marked exponent relation”I’m not certain what this means P8 L167-178 COMMENT Nothing in this section actually describes any of the patterns in the results P8 L167-170 DELETE “In this study…method in Lab.” This should already be apparent from the methods P8 L170-172 COMMENT “The water content…1.32g/cm 3 ” This should be in the methods P8 L179 DELETE the table legend is giventwice Discussion GENERAL COMMENT The discussion is disappointing, in general the authors just re-state their results or even present information that should have been contained in the results section itself. Patterns in the data are not explored or interpreted and there is extremely limited comparison with previouspublished work. This section needs to be thoroughly revised P12 L214-216 COMMENT I’m afraid I couldn't understand this section P12 L218 “Fig. 3” elsewhere the word“Figure” has been given in full, check what style the journal requires P12 L218-223 COMMENT This section does not seek to explain the patterns in the results instead, as previously, it just points the reader to figures without explaining or discussing them. P13 L243-246 COMMENT These regression equations are results of the authors’ statistical analyses and should not be presented in the discussion P13 L252 COMMENT “could be 10% - 30% higher…” Can the authors suggest what the implications of this finding are? P13 L254-259 COMMENT Can the authors suggest why their results are different to those of Fan and Su? P15 L302-306 COMMENT These regression equations are results of the authors’ statistical analyses and should not be presented in the discussion P16 L327 COMMENT “There was a reasonable…”The authors need to define what they mean by reasonable References Check formatting, some references have missing spaces or include journal issue numbers. Figures andTables Table 3: Consideration of the informationin this table could be expanded as it provides useful data on below-ground carbon stocks in tree roots, something for which data is often lacking. The authors should seek to try and turn their estimates into an estimate of kg C m -2 held in the trees’ roots. Table 4: Symbols should be explained in thetable legend rather than in a footnote Table 5: The thinking behind the experimental design implicit in this table should be described in the methods.Note that you examined the effect of soil properties using Pinus roots but then also examined species effects using standard soil conditions. Justify why you selected those particular standard conditions Figure 2 This figure does not provide any useful information and duplicates Table 5. Could the authors use this information to model (logistic regression) the probability of breakage failure based on soil properties and root diameter? Figure 3 In the key what does “calculating”mean? Calculated using what and on the basis of what? Explain in the methods Figure 4 Change “fitting” to “fit” Are the different lines here justified.
曾经看到国内某EI期刊返给作者的审稿意见就只有两句话，大意就是“文章的新意不够，研究不深入”。一个作者，特别是一位青年科学工作者，看到这份审稿意见能够做什么呢？他们能够从审稿人的审稿意见得到什么有启发性的见解呢？他们能够根据审稿人的意见对文章进行改进性的修改吗？不能！ 因此，一份审稿意见应该有方向性的指导，还要有具体的建议，如果能够对作者未来继续进行深入研究有启发性的作用就更好！ 在此展示的这份审稿意见，其实是作者根据审稿人的意见对文章进行了修改以后的二审意见。审稿意见洋洋洒洒好几页，非常具体中肯。对这样的评审专家，我们应该表示由衷的敬意！ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This manuscript is considerably improved over the initial submission, but there needs to be greater clarification of the analysis, more attention to important details, and improved organization. Also, the use of the English language needs improvement in places, but I leave that to the copyeditors to assist the authors. My comments below are organized by section of the manuscript. Introduction. I wouldn't say that interpolation techniques resolve the shortage of observations, as the suitability of these methods is in part a function of the station density. The sentence that reanalysis most closely estimate the state of real atmosphere is also problematic as it is not clear what the reanalyses are being compared against. Also, in the introduction the authors state that their goal is to verify monthly 2 m air temperature in the ERA-Interim for the Tibetan Plateau, however, most of their analysis is at the annual and seasonal (rather than monthly) temporal scale. Section 1.2. If a time series was not complete how was this handled? Were the missing data filled in with data from neighboring stations? Also, the 5 consecutive years criteria seems somewhat odd, especially as it appears that only one station had less than 10 years of data. Why not exclude that station and use a stricter criterion? Also, the authors should provide the period of record in Table 1 for each of the stations to help readers interpret the results. In addition, how did the authors deal with the 20 stations that didn't have data for the full period 1979-2010? Were these stations included in the trend analysis and climatological maps, for example? Section 2.1 Is the ratio of standard deviations for the annual standard deviation? I am assuming that the other parameters, bias, rmse, etc. also are for the annual means of Te and To. Is that correct? At this time, it would also been helpful to see a plot of bias and/or rmse against the difference in elevation between the observation station and the ERA-Interim gridpoint. It is important for readers to see what the shape of this distribution looks like in order to better understand the impact of the lapse rate correction discussed later in the manuscript. This type of graph would also better support the authors' convention that bias is related to the elevation station, rather than providing examples in the text for only a few stations with small and large biases. Also, are the differences shown in Table 3 statistically significant? I doubt if they are. Section 2.2 In my earlier review, I had suggested that the annual cycle be removed when correlating the time series of monthly data from observations and ERA-Interim, because the correlation was representing how well the annual cycles agreed between the two datasets rather than how well ERA-Interim was simulating the month-to-month variability seen in the observations. However, the authors say on page 6 that they removed the annual cycle from the values of annual and seasonal mean temperatures rather than the monthly values. I am perplexed on how and why they did this. What method was used to remove the annual cycle? Or when they say the removed the annual cycle are they just saying that they averaged the monthly values by year and season? There really isn't any need to remove the annual cycle when calculating and comparing annual and seasonal means. I have some additional concerns regarding the Section 2.2 on temporal and spatial variability. Rather than annual variability on line 7, I think the authors mean inter-annual variability, or in other words, year-to-year variability in the annual mean. And by seasonal variability are the authors referring to the year-to-year fluctuations in the seasonal means? I suspect so, but they need to make this clear. Figure 3 for station No. 1 is not very useful in demonstrating how well the ERA-Interim is replicating inter-annual variability of the annual and seasonal means. The bias is very large at this station and the vertical resolution of the graphs is coarse, thus the graphs for both observations and ERA-Interim appear very flat. Based on the plot, only the winter averages of ERA-Interim show considerable inter-annual variability, but that is partly because the vertical resolution of the winter graph is finer than that for the plots of the others seasons and the annual mean. Table 4 shows that at station No. 1 the correlation for winter is 0.295 but the annual value is only a little higher at 0.376. But because of the scale of the graph, the curve for the inter-annual variations in the annual mean appears very flat for both the Te and To series when the correlation suggests that the inter-annual variability of the two series is rather dissimilar. Also, perhaps a better station to use to show differences in inter-annual variability is station 14, which has low correlations for some seasons but the elevations of the observation station and the ERA-Interim gridpoint are more similar than for Station #1 and bias is much smaller. In the second paragraph under 2.2 it appears that the authors are now looking at bias in the monthly values rather than the inter-annual variability of the monthly values. This needs to be made clear. The writing of this paragraph can also be tightened and the paragraph shortened to highlight the differences in bias between summer and spring, and between the eastern versus southern TP. Again, I question the focus on Station No. 1 given the large difference in the To and Te elevations. There are also some grammar errors in this paragraph. Section 2.3. I don't understand what the authors mean when they say that the The monthly lapse rates are obtained from Kunkel (1989) and Liston and Elder (2006). These studies were for other parts of the world -- weren't the lapse rates calculated specifically for the Tibetan Plateau? Or do the authors mean that they used the procedures from Kunkel and Liston and Elder to calculate the lapse rates? Whatever, it is not clear how the lapse rates were found. The authors need to explicitly describe how the correction was calculated. Table 5 doesn't need to include all the different parameters as the correlation, standard deviation ratios and standard deviation don't change much for the lapse-rate corrected temperatures. Why not focus instead on the bias and the rmse and show the difference between the values for the corrected and uncorrected series or in other words show the difference between the values in Table 2 and Table 5. Also, are the bias and rmse values given at the top of page 7 the average values across all the stations? Another question is why would the variation of Tc differ from that of Te? After all, for each month a constant is being added to Te to calculate Tc. Even though the constant varies by month, I wouldn't expect much difference in the variation of Te and Tc. Also, what is the correlation model? And why isn't the bias reduced at all the stations, why just at 57 stations? Does it have something to do with the shape of the relationship between bias and elevation difference? Here is where a graph of bias versus elevation difference would be very useful. Note that at station #11 Te and To are at similar elevations and the bias was initially small. What if you stratify the data by elevation? Do you see that the correction was useful for higher elevation stations but introduced error for lower elevation stations? And why didn't you also use the Gao et al. method in addition to the Kunkel method? Section 2.4. It is not clear from the climatology maps what new information the ERA-Interim provided. What did the ERA-Interim tell you about the temperature climatology that was not previously known from observations only? Also, the authors need to be more careful when they say that the ERA-Interim captures the topographic features very well since the climatology maps are not compared to similar maps prepared from observations. I also would caution against speculating on the causes of the temporal trends, but rather focus on how similar the trends for the ERA-Interim are compared to the trends calculated from observations, especially given that this paper is an evaluation of ERA-Interim. On what evidence are you basing your statements that the ERA-Interim does better than ERA-40 to capture temporal trends? Section 3. Rather than whole time series, say instead ... complex TP at annual, monthly and seasonal temporal scales ... Also, what does Overall the TP has great temporal and spatial variations mean? Figures and Tables. More attention needs to be paid to figure and table captions: Figure 1. The caption needs to include what are the numbers in this figure. Something like, The numbers refer to the station number shown in Table 1. Figure 2. Is this a plot of annual mean temperature? The variable that is plotted needs to be described in the figure caption. Figure 3. The scales on these plots are not consistent -- note that the scale is finer for the winter plot and consequently there appears to be greater inter-annual variability. Keep the scales consistent so that it is easier to compare the different plots. Also, I question whether this plot is even necessary, as basically it shows that, with the exception of some years in winter, the Te is considerably warmer than To. Figure 4. Include units for RMSE (oC). Figure 5. A better caption would be Average annual mean temperature (oC) across the Tibetan Plateau for 1979-2010 from the ERA-Interim reanalysis. Figure 6. Average temperature (oC) across the Tibetan Plateau for 1979-2010 from the ERA-Interim reanalysis for a) spring, b) summer, c) autumn, and d) winter.
本人是科研菜鸟，今天收到加拿大一杂志的邮件，不知道是否要回？请给位大神给点意见！邮件的内容如下： Dear Dr. Yi-wen Zhang, Your interesting published article Power-aware scheduling algorithms for sporadic tasks in real-time systems drives me to call for new papers and honorary reviewer, on behalf of Computer Communication Collaboration, which is an English quarterly journal in Canada. This peer reviewed journal focuses on smart internet and it welcomes papers on general theories of computer science, data communications, multimedia, social network, machine learning, data mining, intelligent collaboration and other relevant topics, both theoretical and empirical. All papers should be written in professional English. The length of 2000-5000 words is suggested. We accept papers in MS-word or PDF format. If your paper is qualified for publication after refereeing, it will be published within 2-4 months from the date of submission. Please kindly find the “Application Form for Honorary Reviewer” as attached. Thank you for your consideration.
“新官上任，三把火”，今年年前国务院对春节年假的规定大有变化，其中最让人恼火地莫过于“除夕夜也得上班”。此外，由于省财政拨款迟迟未到，全省政府部门及事业单位的2014年1月份工资也未能按时发放，其次，所里年终奖金年前也不可能拿到了。没办法，我等鼠辈只能在所里按兵不动，不敢提前回老家过年。过完腊月二十六，人文关怀的内部政策（无正式文件）不胫而走：可以请探亲假；但出问题，则后果自负 。 1月27日，我到单位向课题组领导请假回老家。然后，我在家过了一个极为憋屈的春节。主要有以下三个方面的原因：其一，过年费紧张，只能极为低调，任由亲朋好友数落；其二，无私家 车，从乡下转战其他地方拜年，拎着拜年物质，拖家带口，极为不便；其三，父母赡养问题，原本回家之前就和妻子商量好：每月给双方父母一定的赡养费，哪知正月初一，还没等我们提出，就被父亲一顿数落，当着许多亲戚的面说我怎么没能力之类的话语，让我和妻子彻底无语。其实，归根结底，一个字：钱。没办法，谁让我一个堂堂的博士生，年收入远远低于一个大学肄业生（我小姑的儿子，从事摄影）：他现在开着德国进口Tiguan，另外还给父母买了北京 现代并在长沙芙蓉北路万科买了精装房。哎，每次总拿这个说事，我真没法回应，只能在一旁忍着；谁让他的眼里除了钱，就没有精神层面的追求了呢。 呵呵，扯远了，还是言归正传吧。说说这第一次为SCI刊物审稿的事情。1月27日，昆虫科学方面的一家老牌SCI期刊编辑向我发出“Article Review Request”；可惜，正如前文所言，我已回老家，而在老家上网也不方便。直到，1月30日，我用手机的无线上网，才得知此事。但用手机回复Email还是不熟练，因此只好等到2月5日回到长沙，晚上10点多，我浏览了编辑给我发的该文的Title及Abstract，内容大概就是某种害虫两个**基因的克隆和表达分析， 感觉较为熟悉。因此，我给编辑回复：很遗憾，由于1月31日至2月6日为中国春节假期，我直到现在才回复您；但我 欣然同意 作为审稿之一为该稿件评审，并力争按时完成任务 。由于时间紧迫，截止日期为2月17日（共计20天），从我答应审稿到截止日期也就12天。因此，这几天，我抓紧时间审阅。 幸甚的是，这篇文章的内容和我在CAU攻读 硕士及博士期间从事的研究内容比较接近；再者，近期我作为第二作者在Pest Management Science 发了一篇类似框架的 文章，而且我也参与了这篇文章的写作和后期的修改， 因此审阅时 驾轻就熟。 该稿件总共才15页（Single-Spaced；6 Figures、1 Table；Each figure and table with a separate page），除了3页References，正文也就7页不到。令人 遗憾地是，该稿件行文不流畅； 前后不一致（MATERIALS AND METHODS中说是提取5龄幼虫一些组织的总RNA，而RESULTS和后面的图却均为4龄幼虫，看来作者是打算给审稿人出谜语了）；“材料与方法”交代不翔实（让人雾里看花）；昆虫拉丁文名全称和缩写混乱（通常第一次出现应用全称且斜体，后面出现再用缩写；可作者在 文中却随心所欲、错乱表述）；语法错误甚多（更 为离谱的是，竟然连“材料与方法”中“方法” 的单词都拼错，误写为“MATHEDS”）；其他小错误举不胜举，比如Table 1中备注中写到F和R分别代表上、下游引物的缩写，结果害我找了N 久，也没发现这两个字母在哪？ 哎，越往下看，越上火，因此我只好暂时将它搁置在一旁。要不是看在作者是国人以及第一次为SCI期刊审稿的份上，我真想直接Reject。 在此，我真心奉劝那些挤破脑袋为毕业而瞎凑 文章且不用心写作的童鞋们，哪怕你写作水平有限，也得摆正态度——认真、细心写作和检查，而不是写完就了事。即使，你不能给审稿人带去快乐，至少也不要给他们带去厌恶吧；毕竟，这是份没有报酬的苦差事。 不说了，再好好看看，希望还能锻炼下我的耐心和忍受力，同时以便给编辑一个交代。 PS:直至此时，该文审阅终于落下帷幕。秉承学习和努力的态度，以及给作者一次重新审视自我的机会，本人推荐“Resubmit for Review”。昨晚，为了写好Comments中Major concerns（11条），熬夜至凌晨4点多。今天上午，又奋斗了4个多小时，总算写完Minor concerns（24条，未能一一列出，其他 部分则嘱咐作者自己再细细修改）。累计1万多字符，洋洋洒洒书写5页（A4）。 递交完审稿意见的那一刻，感觉轻松许多。呵呵，接下来，全身心备战2014 NSFC！ 刚才，期刊编辑又发一封 Email向我再次致谢（之前，发了封格式化的致谢信）。呵呵，希望我不是他所见过的很严格的审稿人之一。 摘录如下： Thank you very much again for your time and efforts. Based on the page length of your review comments, you are one of the most serious reviewers ever seen. All the best to you.
最近很是纠结了半个月，我该否呢，该改呢，该直接通过呢。也幸亏自己纠结了，方知道没有酿成后遗症，因为文章作者打听到了，稿件在我手上，所以游说者接踵而至。 我呢，一直的立场是“改”，因为，不要和别人重复太多，文章总要有点新意，总要和杂志水平相当。作者是互相认识的，是不可能“否的”；但如何改，不伤筋动骨，而要“拿得出手”，是自己纠结的地方。而作者的一再催促，现在看来，我这样的考虑，是不是“不识时务”呢。 附审稿意见： 1. 该文能够在《基于文献计量学的宁夏农业科研机构和农业高校学科发展轨迹研究 _ 王盾》、《基于文献计量学的国际遥感学科发展态势分析 _ 冯筠》等学者思路基础上，对XX高校农业学科的发展进行梳理，探寻学科发展过程中的不足，具有较大的应用价值。 2. 数据来源：该文以 CNKI 、 ISI 平台作为中英文数据来源，有失偏颇： CNKI 中文文献基本囊括，而 ISI 平台与 CABI 平台相比，论文水平更高而检全率偏低。建议， (1)CNKI 中核心期刊以上数据 +ISI 平台作为数据来源，或者 (2)CNKI 平台 +CABI 平台作为数据来源。 3. 该文罗列事实较多，而对该校学科发展的未来评述较少，比如“团队作者、国际化”等；建议该文，能够选取一个比较对象，比如中国农大、华南农大等，进行对比分析，从而更准备掌握XX高校优势劣势，更准确把握XX高校核心竞争力，就该校农业学科发展提出建设性意见。 4. 该文后期研究，可以就农业学科下属某一小学科或研究领域，比如该校从前的“土壤学”，进行国内外发展历史、研究热点对比分析，应该更有借鉴意义和创新价值。可参考文献有 ” Trends of e-learningresearch from 2000 to 2008: Use of text mining and bibliometrics” 、 ” A Bibliometric Analysis of 30 Yearsof Research and Theory on Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate SocialPerformance” 。 5. 建议该文修改后再审。 周剑 2013-04-03
2010年给IEEE trans. on Fuzzy Systems投了2篇论文，如下图： 《投稿》 第一篇： 2010年4月23日投稿，2010年7月13日出来了结果，据稿。 审稿时间不到3个月。 总共4个审稿人。 Referee 1：审稿意见为一pdf文件，3页，21条。可以看出审稿人经过了非常认真的阅读和总结，由审稿意见，基本确定是我推荐的一位审稿人，该领域的大牛。对该意见，我大部分都接受。While it is of interest to compareX andY in a fair and scholarly manner,in order to make connections between them and to understand how they are alike and different,this paper does not achieve this. From the very beginning one is left with the author’s impression—X are better than Y. 主要问题是，论文在表达方面确实存在很多问题，在论文的撰写时，可能言辞比较针锋相对。我通过说明Y的种种不好，来表达X的优良性质，而该审稿人可能就是Y方面研究最多的专家和引领者。这次投稿最大的教训就是，不能像说话一样评论别人的研究。当然，这篇文章也确实有很多硬伤，所以，据稿后，再也没投过别的期刊了，等以后有一些积淀后进行一次大改再继续。 Referee 2：pdf文件，3页，观点主要是研究深度不够，意见也是据稿。 Referee 3：2条简单的意见，意见为修改。 Referee 4：感觉就是打酱油的，提了些语法问题，意见也是修改。 第二篇： 2010年5月19日投稿，2010年9月1日一审结果：大修。 2010年10月23日修改稿上传，2011年1月5日据稿。 共3个审稿人。 Referee 1：一审中，提了3个小问题，通过第2个问题看出不是小同行。二审中又抓住一个跟该论文不太相关的问题，说我没说清楚，无奈。 Referee 2：一是说语言要润色，二是说与其他方法的比较不够。两次意见都差不多，也很无奈。语言当时确实写的英文论文少，也没人帮我改，与其他方法的比较，由于AHP之类的方法，通常都没有很好的量化指标进行比较分析其性能的，因为决策者是不一样的。 Referee 3：意见偏了，不是我论文的主题老要我去研究。 总之，这次感觉很倒霉，遇到的3个审稿人都只是大同行，不是小同行。不过可能我修改的时候，也确实改动不大，没有达到审稿人的预期，有些问题回避了。 还好，这篇论文后来投到Information Sciences，所有审稿人一审意见都是小修，只是后来主编一直要求语言润色，自己润了3次都不行，结果自己花钱找了一家润色公司，心疼。 第三篇： 前天投稿的，当天就进入 Under Review了，速度很快。 根据主编前几天给我发的邮件，IEEE trans. on Fuzzy Systems现在一审周期只要2个月了，祝贺。 I would like to share with you that TFS have improved the manuscripts process procedures to fulfill all users’ expectations. Now authors may have their first decision in possible 2 months and the review time would be reduced. 期待有好消息。 《审稿》 没想到2010年投的2篇论文都被据稿，在2012年竟然接连收到3篇审稿邀请，看了摘要后，发现确实跟我一直研究的比较接近，所以都接收了审稿。 第一篇 为了审好这篇论文，我仔细阅读了37篇相关文献，包括该论文的参考文献和引用其参考文献的文献，可以说花费了大量的时间。最后写了2页十几条审稿意见。 开心的是，最后编辑的决定直接引用了我的审稿意见，可以说编辑主要是参考了我的意见。 第二篇 这篇论文一看就知道达不到TFS的要求，为了保险起见，我还是阅读了10几篇相关文献，最后写了10几条审稿意见。 4个审稿人的意见一致都是据稿。 最后编辑的意见也是据稿，提出了3条据稿理由，其中2条是我的审稿意见中的。 第三篇 我提的是大修，10几条意见，其他2个一个看似是大修，另一个看似是小修，修改稿还未返回，结果未知，编辑没有提意见。 奇怪的是，3篇论文，我都是Referee 1。不知道是怎么排序的。三篇论文一审都在3个月以内。 TFS要求还是比较高的，不过审稿速度很快，而且邀请审稿人时，只能看到论文摘要，这可以防止未发表的成果大量扩散。不像我最近审的FODM，邀请审稿人时就发了全文，不管被邀请人接不接收审，都可以下载全文。 最后，投论文运气也比较重要，碰到不合口味的审稿人容易被据稿。当然，只要论文确实做得不错，至少还是有修改的机会的，这时就一定要好好修改了，充分理解审稿人的意图。
一直很眼馋传说中的各位牛人从博士阶段就接受各种审稿邀请，感觉上似乎化学学科比生物行业发文章更快，审稿机会也更多，比如马臻老师审着审着就到了审不过来的程度。这周终于盼到自己第一次做独立审稿人，也算尝了尝鲜。 过程是这样的，虽然我主要的方向是肥胖，糖尿病，胰岛素抵抗的基础研究，但经过五年的写文章投稿修稿，已经蛮有经验的了，高年级的时候协助指导了做甲亢临床方向的师弟师妹的实验设计并修改了文章，报道新发现了个甲亢marker，并阐述了其在甲亢中的功能，最终发表在临床内分泌专业内最好的JCEM上。这次有PLOS ONE的投稿也是做这个marker的，并且在文章中引用了我们的结论，于是PLOS ONE把文章发给通讯作者，他推荐了我独立审稿，于是这个PLOS ONE就重新把文章发给了我。PLOS ONE是关注度和争议度都很高的杂志了，所以借此可以说说我对PLOS ONE审稿的过程和感受。 第一是PLOS ONE审稿速度应该有保障，因为editor要求在10天内返回审稿意见。这点大大出乎我意料，因为我们投稿基本上外审回来一个月总是要的，而且网上有的帖子说PLOS ONE现在稿件众多，审稿很慢。我不知道10天后editor还要多久才能决定，但我想应该不会很慢。 第二是PLOS ONE的审稿要求，这也是争议较大的一点。众所周知，PLOS ONE是只有电子版，所以没有文章数量的限制。并且其要求是 The study presents the results of primary scientific research. Results reported have not been published elsewhere. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability. 大多数要求都是很容易达到的，总体来说，只要文章里数据支持最终结论，就可以发，细节上网站还称即使数据是别人做过的也可能发，网站称这个说明前人数据可重复，这是争议比较大的一点，作为影响因子过4的杂志，国内一大堆等着毕业的博士生还挺有福气的。不过我想真要是完全重复人家的工作，一般的老板也干不出来，多数可能还是科研撞车了的。不禁想如果当年我撞车的文章有PLOS ONE这么善解人意的杂志来发表就好了（故事见我以前的博客文章 如何冷静面对课题的“撞车”和“即将撞车 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-676085-530679.html ，已被中国科学报转载）。 所以静下心来看文章，投稿的是一巴基斯坦的实验室，也是个临床文章，做的内容可以算是我们那篇文章的一点点引申，但也有重复的地方，而且数据量和信息量都很有限，只有三个table，里面还包括一个table是病人资料，并且文章中也有不少问题，比如病人资料不全，数据太preliminary不足以支持结论，等等。就我个人看，实在是不咋地，感觉能投上sci就已属不错了。查了一下通讯作者，已经是巴基斯坦某大学教授了，pubmed上也就三篇不认识的sci，看来硬要想做faculty，巴基斯坦倒是个选择。 第三，写审稿意见不容易。本来想着要据的，但摸不透PLOS ONE这杂志发表的风格，只是据说通过率蛮高的，并且自己也略有恻隐之心，所以决意还是把审稿意见写详细点，就当对方是师弟师妹指导一下，对方如果都做完就能达到PLOS ONE或者JCEM的水平。开写审稿意见的时候，参考了以前我发表文章的审稿意见，有正面的有负面的，格式基本上先写此文梗概，有什么发现什么意义，然后第二段就开始笔锋一转，表明自己的concern，我分major comments和minor comments分别来写，前者主要是要求对方完善病人情况，实验设计方面，增加了更多的实验组，以及对机理提出了要求。后者主要是单复数，结论下得太大的句子做改动，整整也写了两页，最后给了major revision，两天提交，不过还不知道editor最后如何定夺。据说如果审稿意见比较负面，即使给了大修，editor也会据，我就等着其他审稿人和editor的意见了。这些意见也会发给我，这种交流也是很重要的经历和学习啊，蛮享受这个过程的。 第四，因为审稿，也仔细查看回顾了PLOS ONE以前发表的一些文章，这才第一次发现其文章引用率都相对较高。这可能是由于其Open Access的缘故，两三年前发表的临床文章，两位数以上的引用很正常，竟然有的已经达到三位数，这在生命科学和医学领域还是很难得的，说明PLOS ONE被关注的程度还是挺高的。虽然大家对这个杂志都有自己的看法，其稿件也确实良莠不齐，不过如果有合适的工作差不多的档次，但希望引起更多的关注，PLOS ONE也是个不错的选择。 如果有内分泌代谢方面，obesity, diabetes, insulin sensitivity, aging,thyroid dysfuncton的文章，可以推荐我做审稿人。如果不嫌弃，我也愿意给投稿的各位提点建议。希望自己的审稿经验能越来越多。
谢谢 王先生看了我的有关对于王元的评论。 王先生对我提出一个重要的问题。我已作了回答。下面把 数论杂志主编的来信， 把国际数论杂志的评审，把中国数学（数学分册）的评审。列在下面，搞科教的人，都可以看得懂。 1）国际数论杂志主编的来信。 发件人： goss@math.ohio-state.edu 添加到通讯录 拒收 邀请 收件人： ... 收件人： fengkean@126.com 收件人： fengkean@126.com 抄送人： ... 抄送人： 抄送人： 日 期： 2008-01-11 22:47:33 Dear Feng, This is in regard to the manuscript Matrix Expression and Properties of non-prime odd number---Goldbach Conjecture is Right which you submitted for publication in Journal of Number Theory. The Editors have decided that your manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal. Therefore, we regret to inform you that we cannot consider your paper for publication. We would like to encourage you to submit your paper to another more suitable journal. Thank you for your interest in Journal of Number Theory. Sincerely, Journal of Number Theory Central Editorial Office 2）下面是国际数论杂志的来信 Paper on Riemann Hypothesis - Matrix Expression and Properties of non-prime odd number-Goldbach Conjecture is Right 发件人： IJNT Editor ijnt@wspc.com ; ( 由 em.ijnt.152.2088ec.1f311253@editorialmanager.com 代发 ) 时 间： 2011 年 1 月 21 日 15:13 ( 星期五 ) 收件人： Ke-An Feng fengkean@126.com ; Ke-An Feng fengkean@126.com ; 备 注： 编辑 删除 保 存 取 消 Paper on Riemann Hypothesis - Matrix Expression and Properties of non-prime odd number?Goldbach Conjecture is Right IJNT Editor 于 2011 年 1 月 21 日 15:13 ( 星期五 ) 发给 Ke-An Feng 。 完整信息 请勿轻易相信汇款、中奖等信息，确保打开的网址来源可靠。 防诈骗技巧 翻译成中文 正在翻译，请稍候 ... Dear Professor Ke-An Feng Paper: Matrix Expression and Properties of non-prime odd number--Goldbach Conjecture is Right Thank you very much for submitting your paper on the Goldbach Conjecture to the International Journal of Number Theory. As you know, this is one of the most important problems in all of mathematics. It is the policy of the IJNT to neither accept nor even consider submissions claiming proofs of such important theorems. However, we encourage you to submit your paper to one of the three world's leading journals in mathematics. If your proof is correct, publication in such a journal will give your proof the recognition and exposure that it deserves. Moreover, since these journals have published proofs of many very important theorems, they have in place a system of multiple referees who will check all details of your proof. Sincerely, Coordinating Assistant, IJNT for the Managing Editors 3）下面是中国科学（数学）的无赖回信。 SCIENCE CHINA Rejected Notice( 初筛退稿 ) 发件人： sender@scichina.org ; 时 间： 2011 年 2 月 6 日 19:43 ( 星期日 ) 收件人： fengkean@126.com ; fengkean@126.com ; This message is sent out by the system. No reply is required. If you have any question, please contact the managing editor(email: zhangry@scichina.org ). Your manuscript entitled " Matrix Expression and Properties of non-prime odd number-Goldbach Conjecture is Right " submitted to SCIENCE CHINA Mathematics Register Number ： 012011-87 Title ： Matrix Expression and Properties of non-prime odd number-Goldbach Conjecture is Right Author(s) ： 作者列表 （ * for corresponding author ） has been received. We have a prescreening process that examines the received manuscripts to determine whether they fit into the scope and meet the standard requirements of the journal. In this process, it has been decided that your manuscript referenced above should be returned to you without being sent for review. This decision has no implication on the scientific quality and merits of your research. The prescreening process is only a measure that is used to reduce the number of manuscripts received and sent for review and to avoid possible delay with the review and publication of certain manuscripts. Nevertheless, I would like to take this opportunity to once again thank you for submitting your work to SCIENCE CHINA Mathematics . Yours sincerely, SCIENCE CHINA Mathematics 2011-02-06 Chinese Version: 冯克安 先生 / 女士： 您好！ 谢谢您的来稿。经初步审查，来稿反映了所在研究领域的新成果，有一定的科学意义。遗憾的是，我刊版面有限，我们只能选择刊登一些对本领域和相关领域的研究有较大促进作用的稿件。因此，您的来稿不适合于我刊，建议改投有关专业性期刊。 感谢您对 中国科学 数学 的支持和信任。欢迎有新的研究成果时再选择 中国科学 数学 ！ 中国科学 数学编辑部 2011-02-06 此邮件从系统邮箱送出，请不要直接回复，如有疑问请与 张睿燕 编辑联系（ email: zhangry@scichina.org 4）下面是亚-欧国际数学杂志的回信。 Re: submitted a paper 发件人： kpshum@maths.hku.hk ; 时 间： 2011 年 1 月 21 日 11:56 ( 星期五 ) 收件人： fengkean fengkean@126.com ; fengkean fengkean@126.com ; 备 注： 编辑 删除 保 存 取 消 Dear Professor Feng, Thank you for letting me to see your paper on twin primes.Unfortuanately, Asian European Journal is not a Journal for your paper. I would suggest you that you shoud send your paper to some more popular Math Journals in China.In the China Academy of Science at Beijing, Professor Wang Yuen is an known expert in Number theory. He is the Honoaray editor of a number of Mathematical Journals. May be he can give you some comments to your paper ? Thank you for your atention.Happy Chinese New Year to you, ,Thanks, KP Shum Dear Professor K.P.Shum (Chief Editor) Dear Professor Jorg Koppitz ((Managing Editor) : Enclosed a short paper entitled " the Reason of Extence of Twin Primes" and submitted for your consideration to publish in Asian-European Journal of Mathematics. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated. The paper( in attachment) belong to (MR --11A). Best Regards. Yours Sincerely Professor Ke-An Feng Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Science,Beijing 100080
1个月内收到2次 IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 的审稿邀请！ 难道我马上就要成为顶级期刊的重要审稿专家了。 6.20收到了生平第一次审稿邀请，邀请审投到 IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 的一篇文章，第一回当审稿专家就审投到顶级期刊的文章。今天又收到该期刊的审稿邀请！ 不知道为什么老找我当审稿专家，看了论文的摘要后，发现与我的方向太相似了，于是又忍不住点了接受审稿邀请。 接受审稿邀请后就可以看到论文全文了，粗略看了一下论文，内容挺熟悉，比前一篇熟悉。 可惜第一篇都还没审完，看了一些参考资料，有点想据，又舍不得，创新是有，但是觉得达不到IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems的要求，且模型存在一定问题。 IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems今年的影响因子大于4，是Fuzzy理论中最高的，在人工智能大领域好像排第2. 又有得忙了，累死了，自己都没得时间写论文。
昨天晚上收到 IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 的审稿邀请，一时很是激动！ 以前从来没审过稿（只本科的时候帮老师审过2篇），连中文稿件都没审过，没想到第一次审稿就是这个领域的顶级期刊！ 我2010年向IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 投过2篇论文，可惜没抓住机会，大修后被拒了，现在也没能在上面发表过论文。 昨晚收到审稿要求后，考虑良久，不知道该不该接，直到今天晚上，按照论文题目和摘要，搜索了一些相关论文后，发现方向跟我的比较接近，于是兴趣大起，刚接受审稿。该期刊要求2个工作日内就决定是否接受审稿邀请：Please respond within two business days. 接受审稿后，就看到论文全文了，粗略浏览了下，感觉压力还是挺大，公式太多。IEEE TFS is the flagship journal for fuzzy sets and its reputation is highly significant for all of us. 哎，这几天又要好好看文献了，争取审好！PS：该期刊想得挺周到的，审稿意见用word写： (2). Note that, word may include authors name in an author field for a file. You can check if it is included by clicking on file, document properties, summary. The author field should be blank or clearly not the name or any information that could identify the reviewer.
今天早晨已是第二次打开邮箱，检查是否有本科毕业学生交来的论文。突然，发现一封来自Elesvier某刊主编来信，很是诧异。因为刚刚给该刊审理过的一个熟人的文章，这是该论文的第二次审稿，第一次给了大修的机会。 信中说，“你的有关审稿意见已经收到，由于该文 复制了以前发表论文的重要内容，我必须 拒 了它 。 为了给你指导，我把审稿意见附后。” 主编的意见比较客观，与审稿人的意见在措词上有较大的区别。 另一个审稿人的意见很致命，他似乎花了蛮多时间，也应该对稿件的研究内容很熟悉，指出“*%的理论背景是 剽窃文献 （作者本人的文献）。 对于发表的文字必须是原创的（Original）。同样的情况也在实验和讨论部分。稿件的多数仍然剽窃了其它注明参考了和未注明的文献，复制的句子或词组必须用双引号 。” 我的第二次审稿意见是小修，指出了作者的一些低级错误和补充图片的问题。由于我没有看参考文献 ,刚刚核对了一下第二审稿人的意见，情况基本属实。只是如何 区别 复制和剽窃？欢迎大家讨论。 我在反思，我审稿的问题出现在哪里呢？刚刚比对了作者的返修稿件，发现 第一稿是不明显存在以上审稿人提出的严重问题的 。 问题出在：作者 修改稿补充了试验理论原理，基本上复制自己以前发表的论文相关部分 。这种现象在该作者以前的论文中也还不同程度的存在，因为试验方法是一样的，只是研究内容不一样。 另外，这篇稿件与我的研究领域有些相关性，应属于大同行，不属于小同行。以前没有了解他/她这方面的工作，但我比较相信作者不会出现所谓剽窃现象。 此次事情，给我教训是： （1）非小同行的稿件不审； （2）熟人朋友的稿件也不要放松，坚持原则，一视同仁。 （3）审稿要认真，学术名节很重要。 （4）参考前人的工作，包括自己的工作，注意合理引用，但不要照抄不误，更不要剽窃，否则后果很严重！ Definition of PLAGIARIZE transitive verb : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source intransitive verb : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source Definition of DUPLICATE 1 : consisting of or existing in two corresponding or identical parts or examples duplicate invoices 2 : being the same as another duplicate copies 来源：http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
最近和好朋友及师兄弟合作完成了两项研究，文章终于出来了，但是我知道即使文章发表了，“审稿”工作远未结束，欢迎各位看官批评指正。 原文： Characterization of the Complete Mitochondrial Genome Sequence of Spirometra eri.pdf 原文： 4-12PDF【2012012900033】凹耳臭蛙消化系统解剖学及组织学观察.pdf
前天收到国内某国际期刊C编辑部审稿通知，发现一篇 稿件似曾相识。我查找今年审稿记录，发现4月11日曾收到另一国际期刊A编辑部的审稿通知，我已经审过这篇稿件，并且给与了不错的评价意见，建议接受。这是我第一次直接给予接受的稿件。 经过与编辑部编辑联系，电话核实，确认期刊A已经收到这篇相似稿件的返回意见，准备发表。我把该稿件的情况反馈给A，希望该刊能慎重。稿件细微的差异是腐蚀的环境不一样，一个是液相，一个是气相，但是腐蚀形貌竟然是相同的照片！明显存在造假嫌疑！ 为了核实稿件的情况，不冤枉作者，整个过程花费了我好几个小时时间和长途电话费，怎不气愤！ 最后，给予期刊C的审稿意见：锯掉。意见如下： A similar manuscript （No. ***** ） had been submitted to Journal A and was accepted, which is confirmed by the editor. After a careful comparison of the two manuscripts, I have to decide that this manuscript should be rejected and hope that the authors will not make a repetitive submission in the future. It is a waste of time for the reviewers! Please respect the reviewers!
3次 Journal of Materials Chemistry，1次 Energy Environmental Science. 前三次有一个和我的方向没有直接关系，是化学合成聚合物，就推掉了；这次是有关LEDs，在我的知识范围。 也不知道他们的选择标准，不过在能力允许范围内咱就遵循“既来之，则审之”的指导方针。
It's really not an easything to find a suitable reviewer who is willing to do review and can make professional and to-the-point comments. An invited reviewer wrote an email to us as follows: ................................ Due to conferences, fieldwork and personal matters I have no time for reviewing (nor my own office work!) until mid September. If you're still looking for reviewers for this paper then, please email me again. Sorry, CCC ................................................................ Now it's only April, if we still can't find reviewers' in Mid Septemer, that means we haven'tfound the suitable revievers yet in the future 5 months. It will be a sad thing for both the author and the journal. Some reviewers directly reject the review invitation, some decline the invitation in a more subtle way. In order to hasten the manuscript processing, editors usuallyselect severaleven tensofreviewers once!
如果说施一公发表在 Cell research 上的文章 Crystal structure and biochemical analyses reveal Beclin 1 as a novel membrane binding protein 文章 “ 审稿时间 ” 短的话（ Received 13 January 2012; Revised 16 January 2012; Accepted 17 January 2012 ），那么下面这篇文章从投稿到发表恐怕会熬煞人。有人开玩笑说：“这就是研究正为什么不能正常毕业的原因之一” 一篇由国立新加坡大学数学学院的 Helmer Aslaksen 以及其合作者发表在 Linear Algebra and its Applications 上的文章 Generators of matrix algebras in dimension 2 and 3 在 1995 时就投稿直到 2006 年才被杂志接受。其中审稿过程长达 11 年，恐怕是世界上审稿时间最长的文章了吧。这样的情况下，如果是时效性较强的领域的文章恐怕早已过时或被被人抢先发表而前功尽弃。 由于好奇，我向该文章的作者打听缘由。该作者表示在审稿过程中该篇文章根据审稿人的意见彻彻底底地重写了两遍。（笔者：学术精神着实可嘉）作者表示，刚开始一段时间是由于编辑没有及时收到审稿人的反馈意见，后来是因为编辑收到评审意见后没有及时反馈给文章作者，再后来是因为作者因为电子邮件过滤器的原因而将审稿意见过滤掉。但是详细的过程作者没有说明，并表示文章的延误主要因为自己原因。但是 11 年的时间确实不是短暂的一两年，这篇文章恐怕可以申请吉尼斯记录了。还有能比这更长的么？？
审稿范围： 9篇英文稿子，其中7篇是SCI杂志的稿子，包括IEEE SMC和 IEEE TEC的稿子， 2篇 International Journal of Energy Optimization and Engineering (IJEOE)； 一篇中文杂志； 作者范围：美国人、法国人、荷兰人、瑞士人、伊朗人、意大利人、中国人等； 审稿领域：基本在群智能算法及其应用相关领域，也有偏重运筹的等； 审稿时间：18天--70天左右，看平时时间； 审稿主导思想：以积极鼓励为主，但有些原则性问题列为必须修改范围，除非看出作者学术态度有问题； 续： 前段时间审的IEEE SMC一篇稿子的最终意见主编抄送给我一份，其他审稿人最关键的一条审稿意见与我一致，心里还是挺高兴的，我提那一条意见看来真的没有冤枉作者，不过我是基于肯定总体贡献基础上的质疑，当然这一条意见没有含糊，咱也不敢含糊，那些IEEE SMC主编或编委的眼光肯定比我独，要发现我这个小小审稿人发现不了稿子的关键问题，只是提供些不痛不痒的意见，以后估计就不让审了，毕竟审审这些好杂志的稿子，发现论文关键问题的眼光可以得到很好锻炼，对自己阅读其他论文发现潜在的研究问题还是有好处的。 续（ 审稿的期刊） Applied Soft Computing; Artificial Intelligence in Medicine; IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation; IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B; IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C; International Journal of Energy Optimization and Engineering; International Journal of Intelligent Information Management; Journal of Global Optimization; Journal of Heuristics; Neural Computing and Applications; Soft Computing;
今天打开邮箱，收到一封来自IET Signal Processing的审稿邀请，如下 Dear Mr. li %%%%%%% （paper No.） （title） *************（authors） I am writing to you in my capacity as editor of IET Signal Processing. I believe the above paper falls within your field of expertise and am therefore writing to ask whether you would be so kind as to review it for me. The abstract is below. To accept the assignment, please do not reply to this email but click on the link below. If you are able to review the paper, I would be most grateful if you could return your report within 6 weeks. However, if you are unable to review the paper due to time constraints or if the paper falls outside your expertise, could I please ask that you take a few moments to suggest an appropriate colleague, which you can do by replying to this email. The full paper will be made available to you, together with details of how to review it, once you have accepted the request. You will also be able to view my decision once this has been made by going into your Reviewer Centre. Thank you in advance for your help. 甚是惊奇，甚至开始有点不信，这太被抬举了。虽然今年早些时候也被两三个国际会议邀请审稿，当时就觉得被抬举了，会议的邀请先是有个审稿专家回执单，我当时回执单填的很有限（根据自己能力）：就是粒子滤波用于机器人定位。 其实，后来会议也没有来稿件，所以并没有实际审稿。当时琢磨着被邀请审稿可能意在邀请你投稿............也就罢了 看看我的发表历史就知道为啥惊奇了：我是去年9月份出国，今年算博二。我在国内的时候仅发表了4篇机器人领域算是像点样的中文期刊（自动化学报，机械工程学报，机器人），和一篇水准很一般的IEEE的国际会议，再无其他！过去一年出国新适应+这边对论文也没有那么“崇拜”，没有任何产出呐，目前为止倒是投了两篇稿子。 但是这次，IET Signal Processing 2010的影响因子（impact factor ）0.741，在这个领域也不算低了。 邀请一个还没有尝到过发表SCI味道的人审稿，是不是有点扯呐！ 其实，更扯得是，如果这个邀请3个月前来，我基本也就直接跟拒绝了，审不了也就别充胖子啊！因为我一直做的是粒子滤波（和机器人定位），这个是多目标跟踪的（当然也碰巧这篇文章融合的算法中牵扯到粒子滤波）。巧的是，多目标跟踪是从今年7月份才开始转移过来的，本学年的研究计划是准备深入研究粒子滤波在多目标跟踪的应用。也就是说：我的发表历史，没有任何迹象能看出来我之前做过多目标跟踪。而我最近正在这方面研读的津津乐道呐，觉得慢慢有眉目了。突然来篇稿子，要审，期刊的档次不低，是很想挑战一下自己但是不是有点仓促呐，倍感压力！煞有书到用时方恨少的感慨！！ 暂且不管稿子怎么到我手的啦，也不管事情扯不扯了，单从工作的角度出发何去何从呐？ 邮件附有文章的摘要，一看能懂（至少知道思路和采用的方法），要不要试试呐？也积累些reputation？
The Journal of Mountain Science (JMS) has formally adoptedonline manuscript submission and review system -ScholarOne Manuscript ( http://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal )since August 29th. All manuscripts submitted after that time will be handled online. In order to guide reviewers to conduct the manuscipt review, we prepare a PPT for reviewers. Guide to Reviewer.pdf
网上关于 SCI, CNS, 影响因子的议论可谓层出不穷。在这里我也来提一个问题供大家讨论： 什么文章才应该发表在代表最高水平的杂志里？ 不知道这个议题在科学网展开过讨论没有，但我想这绝对不是什么新命题吧，平常听到的周围的讨论也不少。最近收到了一位资深学者的来信，又让我想起了这个问题来。在这位做了大半辈子生命科学研究的学者眼里，一种越演越烈的现象令他忧心忡忡。他认为，高水平的研究和论文应该是数据漂亮的，更应该是富含原创性，创新性和多样性的，应该是回答了一些重要问题又同时带来了更多新问题的。过去这几年，虽然他看到投入在每个课题里的人力物力更多了，高影响因子的杂志的影响因子也还是很高，里面真正高水平的论文他觉得反而少了，也越来越少的文章还能让他兴奋得跳起来。 Where is the sense of excitement? 他问道。 一方面他把这个归咎于基金紧缺对每个实验室的压力，另外一个方面他觉得无论从审稿人到编辑，现在都似乎过分热衷于寻找论文里没有的，忽视了论文里已经有的；过分注重论文应该是什么样子（才能达到最重量级别），忽略了他们还可以是什么样子；过分强调论文要面面俱到，却忽略了他们的独创性。这种审稿退稿，或者反复改稿的过程，他认为让一些具备了足够的突破性但比较独特（或者还不够完整）的文章最后没法发表在 CNS 等影响最广泛的杂志里，相反一些突破不大但似乎要啥有啥的却进去了，还有的虽然上了却已经基本上给改得面目全非了。当然，这位学者也认为一篇文章的最终影响力和发表的刊物不见得有太大的关系，是金子总会发光的。但他还是觉得有很多遗憾。 你们怎么看？什么才应该算是代表最高水平的论文？作者，审稿人和编辑在这个过程中又应该担任什么样的角色？这些高影响因子的杂志又应该何去何从？What should they represent?
Some authors submit their manuscripts to several different journals at the same time so as to have their papers published in the most possibly shorttime. For those who want to graduate timely it seems understandable. But it'salso a dangerous way to do so. Today one reviewer wrote to tell us that he received two manuscript review invitations respectively from our journal (JMS)and Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS), and asked us to have a discussion with NHESS about this. Then I wrote a letter to the reviewer to thank him for his information and told him we'd tell him our decision later.ThenI wrotea letter tothe authors to ask for their explanation and decision. 1. The reviewer's letter to the editorial board office Dear Editors of two journals, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS) and Journal of Mountain Science (JMS), I have recently been asked to review manuscripts submitted your journals and accepted to review them. I found today, however, that the two manuscripts were the same in Title and Abstract each other. Co-authors are a bit different. I don't know your policies with respect to double submission but I don't think I can proceed my review process on these manuscripts. I appreciate if you, editorials of two journals, contact each other, confirm the manuscript statuses, discuss how you deal this trouble (I think this is "trouble") and mail me again what I should do (proceed review or not). I don't attach the manuscripts because I'm not sure whether I can transfer the manuscripts to the different editorials and you have original files. I list the date of contact from your side 26 Sep first referee call from JMS 29 Sep first referee call from NHESS 6 Oct reminder from NHESS 9 Oct I returned from my field trip and contact to NHESS and JMS With kind regards, XXX 2. Letter to the reviewer Dear Prof. XXX, Thanks for your information. We'll write to the authors to ask for their explanation and decision, and then write to you. Best regards, JMS 3. Letter to the authors Dear authors, You have sumbitted one manuscript withID 11-XXXX to the Journal of Mountain Science but also to another journal at the same time. Please explain it and tell us whether you will withdraw this manuscript from the Journal of Mountain Science. Regards, JMS
Collection of refusal letters to manuscript review invitation Many scientists or scholars do volunteer peer-reviewforjournals even though they are very busy. It’s the international convention and it’s a great spirit! All JMS’s manuscripts willbe sent out for peer review after they pass the initial review. An appropriate peer-reviewer sometimes is not easytofind. The invited referrees may refuse doing manuscript review for various reasons: some are overloaded with work or with other manuscript review tasks but tell us to keep themin mind next time when we have similar manusccripts, some are not familiar with the contents of the manuscripts or don’t have interest in the contents of the manuscripts, some are in field trip or in vacation so they can’t have time to make comments. Of coursethere are people whojust don’t want to do this job without any reasons. We know most researchers and scholars are very busy. They need to do their daily work and share many otherpublic affairs. It is rare that the invited referrees have no response to us. In most cases when theycan’t review the manuscript, they will immediately write back to explainreasons, andrecommend suitable reviewers.We aregrateful tothese scientists and scholars too. The follows are the collections of refusal letters on manuscript review invitation. 1. Dear colleagues, Thank you for your offer to review. However, I have other commitments now that prevent me from taking more work.I would suggest Terry Jorgenson or Tongyuan Zhang for the review. Thank you, XXX 2 ． Dear Editor, Thanks for your request for review. I am very interested in the subject matter, but am unable to assist with the review at this time because I already have several reviews that I need to complete. Please keep me in mind for future assistance. Listed below are some other possible reviewers. Possible reviewer one Possible reviewer two Possible reviewer three Good luck, XXX 3 ． Dear Editor, I'm sorry for my late response. Regarding your revision inquire, unfortunately I do not believe to be sufficiently inside the paper's topics in order to accomplish an adequate revision. Anyway, I can suggest you Professor XXX XXX, an important Italian Geologist at the National Insitute for Hydrogeological Protection of the National Research Council (CNR - Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche), as a potential reviewer. If you want, you can contact Professor Iovine at the following email address XXX. Best regards XXX 4 ． Dear Editor, Thank you very much for the invitation to review a manuscript for your journal. Unfortunately, though, I have to decline your invitation because I am too busy with other reviews at the moment. Thank you very much in advance for your understanding. Best regards, XXX 5 ． Dear Editor, Greetings from Scotland. In regard to the manuscript you invited me to review, I'm afraid that I don't really have expertise in phytosociology to enable me to give a fair review of it. Sorry that I cannot help you this time. Best wishes XXX 6. Dear Editor, I am very busy with several projects at the moment. I am sorry, but I will not be able to review this manuscript. Sincerely yours, XXX 7 ． Dear JMS, I will not be able to review this manuscript. Thank you for considering me. Sincerely, XXXX 8 ． Dear Editor, I am sorry. I cannot conduct this review because I am currently overloaded by other duties during the next weeks, including several pending reviews. Sincerely, XXXX 9 ． Dear Editor, Thank you for the invitation to review the manuscript about soil temperature on the Tibetan Plateau. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause, but it will not be possible for me to review this manuscript. I am traveling extensively in September and October, and most of this is associated with field work. It simply would not be possible to complete a review in a reasonable time frame. I'm sorry to have to refuse this assignment. Your request came at a very difficult time for me. Yours sincerely, XXX 10 ． Dear Editor, I'm afraid I don't have the opportunity to review this at the moment, but I would suggest the following people would be possible good alternatives for you: XXX, University of XXX. Best regards, XXX 11 ． I am away until 16th September with only occasional email. With best wishes XXX 12 Dear Editor, Thank you for your invitation to review this manuscript. Unfortunately on this occasion I am too busy and must herefore decline your offer. Best wishes XXX 13 ． Sorry, I'll be out of office till end of Sept. 14 ． Dear Editor, Sorry, I can not accept your invitation to review. I can not share my time for research issue because my current position is administration staff. Best wished Respectfully yours XXX 15. Dear editor, I am extremely grateful to you for your kind invitation, but I have to refuse it in this moment because I am currently applying for promotion at my University and I am really very busy. Anyway, my topic of research is valuation of cultural heritage instead of natural heritage. I can recommend you others colleagues specialized in economic valuation techniques. XXX 16. Dear editor, Thanks for the invitation. However I am not qualified in the topic. This article would be better reviewed by a soil scientist. XXX 17. Dear editor, Thank you for the invitation to review. Unfortunately I am in the field and unable to review at this time. Best regards, XXX 18. Unfortunately, I must decline the invitation. The abstract looks interesting but I am already overcommitted for the next month and will be doing fieldwork. You might consider my colleague Dr. XXXXXX as an alternative. Best Regards, XXXXXX
每次审稿时看一看，问问自己这些问题。 以下内容源自IPO的 Introduction to Refereeing Is the work understandable and correct? • Is it clear what the authors are trying to achieve? • Are there sufficient references to provide background and put the work in context? • Are the results backed up with evidence? Are there any unsupported claims? • Is the work correct? Are there any errors, flaws or mistakes in the manuscript? • Are the mathematics or statistics correct? • Do you understand the work? Is the work novel and interesting? • Are the results interesting? • Is the research important? Do the authors explain why it is important or how it advances our understanding of the field? • Is the work original? Does it contain new material? Have any parts of the manuscript been published before? • How relevant is this work to researchers in your field? Would it be beneficial to get an opinion from a researcher in another field? • Is this only an incremental advance over previous work? Is the work well presented? • Does the title reflect the contents of the article? • Does the abstract contain the essential information of the article? • Are the figures and tables correct and informative? Are there too many, or too few? • Does the conclusion summarize what has been learned and why it is interesting and useful? • Is it clear? • Is the manuscript an appropriate length?
杂志如何运行？ 我们在投稿的时候只能看到杂志对作者的要求，一般不了解他们后面在干什么活，了解一下应该对我们有一些帮助。作为新任《 Medical gas res 》 的副主编，我最近接受了几项委派审稿专家的任务，在完成这个任务的过程中，了解到的一点“内幕”，分享给年轻科研工作者，以希望对大家更有效地向国外杂志投稿有一点帮助。 当你的论文被系统确认后，系统给你一个论文编号，主编应该是先看看文章的题目和摘要，根据他的理解，这个内容哪个副主编比较熟悉，就委任这个副主编负责这个稿件的后续工作。当然副主编肯定也要看看内容是否能玩的转，并确认是否接受这个任务。一般情况下，主编都比较忙，不会详细看稿件内容，主要根据题目、摘要、论文副标题、主要结果图片表格。 副主编接受到任务后，下一步主要工作就是寻找合适的审稿专家。 找审稿专家的依据有 4 个方面， 1 是作者建议的审稿专家。 2 是根据 Medline 上的信息与稿件内容符合度，系统自动筛选一批专家，并给出符合度百分比（我觉得这个东西很好，国内的杂志应该效仿）。 3 是杂志的编辑委员队伍。 4 是副主编根据对稿件内容的初步分析，找自己熟悉的专家。一般情况下，副主编比较懒，不会详细看稿件内容，也是主要根据题目、摘要、论文副标题、主要结果图片表格。如果发现论文很有意思，也会细看的。即使副主编自己很熟悉，一般也会继续指派审稿专家的。 所以在投稿的时候，选择比较理想的建议审稿专家也很重要，如果副主编发现你选的是他认为合适，或与系统提示一致的，那么送给这个专家的可能性就比较大。 副主编找好专家后，确认后系统会自动发给审稿专家邀请信，并指定最后期限。信的内容都是套话，就是希望能接受这个任务，帮我们干活。等到了约定时间，如果有的专家没有回来意见，会通过系统发一催促审稿的信。 两个专家的意见到齐后，如果意见比较一致，就是都不拒稿件。副主编会把意见转给作者，在转的时候如果副主编有个人意见，可以在系统中填写，好象一般不写。如果两个专家的意见不统一，则要另请一个专家再审。等第三个专家意见来了，决定拒绝或再审阅，副主编会给主编一个参考意见，主编再指示如何开展后续工作。 作者把修回稿件提交后，主编会再次委托副主编组织工作。一般仍请原来的副主编，当然也可能不同，这个决定权在主编。副主编接受任务后，仍会再邀请原来的两个专家再次审稿（有的杂志邀请另外的专家。）程序同上，这次信的内容中专门写了几个要求： When assessing the work, please consider the following points: 1. Is the question posed by the authors new and well defined? 2. Are the methods appropriate and well described, and are sufficient details provided to replicate the work? 3. Are the data sound and well controlled? 4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data deposition? 5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported by the data? 6. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? 7. Is the writing acceptable? 总的意思是，作者是否根据阁下的意思进行了正确反馈，从语言表达等细节上考虑能接受吧？当然即使这样，专家可能仍有意见，要求作者继续修改，那么重复上述过程。直到论文接受。 在上述邮件的落款中都是主编，就是说虽然副主编做的具体事情，但审稿专家和作者都会感到是主编来的信。
早上查邮件，发现又收到了老板转的审稿的要求，想想读博士的这 3 年多，虽然发的 paper 不多，审的稿却不少，差不多快 30 篇了。大部分都是 electrochemistry 方面的期刊， electrochemical communication 的最多，也有 electrochemical acta ， Journal of The Electrochemical Society 等的 ；另外就是 nanomaterials 中关于是 anodic TiO2 nanotube 部分的， nano letter ， chemistry of materials 等杂志也审过。稿子审的多了，有些心得体会，写出来和大家分享下。想来大家最期盼着自己的稿件被顺利 accepted ，或者 minor revision 了。我提些建议，供大家参考： 1. 无论杂志的 IF 的高低，都请投稿者予以重视。即便是 IF 低的期刊，也不代表投了就一定能中。在正式投稿之时，都请文章的 corresponding author （一般都是各位老板啊），最后审查一下稿件，杜绝各种明显的小错误。很多错误，比如，图片不是最终版本，编号，题注与文中提及的不吻合；单词的拼写错误，或者句子有明显语病；参考文献编号与文中引用的不吻合，等等，虽然这不一定影响稿件质量，但的确很影响审稿人的心情。每本杂志都有存在的价值，即便 IF 低，也并不见得对这些粗心大意容忍度就高。而且，相同专业的审稿人，很可能是同一个批人。 大家每天都有繁重的实验和工作任务，还要用一些私人时间来审稿。而审稿时则发现，手中的稿子竟有这些低级错误，心情自然会非常不爽，对稿件的态度，标准也会严厉了。记得有一次我审 electrochemical acta 的稿子，发现作者是投过其他杂志后，才改投 EA 的。因为后面的图片序列中第 2, 第 4 张图片被删掉了，但文中对照片的描述还是沿用原来的图片标号 , 这样图片顺序就全乱了，我要前后翻几遍才把文中的描述和后面的图片联系起来。整篇文章看下来很吃力，再加上文章的质量也存在些问题，综合一下，就拒掉了。 2. 投稿时，一定要掌握文章档次。千万不要抱着侥幸心理，不论文章质量，从 Angew. Chem. ， Adv. mater 这种大杂志开始按按 IF 从高往低投，希望能中篇大文章。目前，来自国内的稿件中，这种投机做法已经相当泛滥了，我审过的每本杂志都见到过。并从广度上已影响到大陆稿件的声誉。一次聊天中，我的老板就曾经提及，说他碰到的很多杂志的主编都和他抱怨过，大陆的投稿让他们睡不好觉，他们都对来自中国的投稿心生烦闷。现在，无论电化学，还是纳米，各本杂志投稿的数量都大幅增加，尤其是中国大陆的稿件像潮水一般涌来。但这些稿件中鱼目混珠，瑕瑜互见的厉害，有很多稿件质量不过关或者水分很大，为了保证质量（对于学术杂志，质量就是生命啊！），编辑和审稿人需要花很大力气来一篇一篇的甄别所有稿件，这样不但耗费了编辑和审稿人大量的时间和精力，投稿者在耗费时间等待后也只会得到被拒的结果，结果是双输阿！ 其实，对于科研人员，尤其是 nano ， energy ， material 这些新兴和热门领域的科研人员，口碑和可信度是最重要东西。虽然，我们也会看到一个好杂志上有些水文章，但那是大牛灌的，作者有之前辛苦建立起来的信誉来保证，不见得普通的组也可以灌。对于非牛人，一开始就投机，最后只能是一切成空。而当这种个体的投机行为，日益泛滥到被贴上中国标签时，受害的就是我们所有人了，而要修复就需要很长很长的时间。记得 science 的主编就说过，“ 瑞士学者的论文用稿率最高，而中国学者的论文退稿率最高”。希望大家对手中的稿件没有 6 ， 7 成中的把握，还是投低级别的杂志吧。口碑的建立，还是要靠我们每一个人的。 3. 文章被审后，一般审稿人在给出意见的同时，也会给些建议或者提出些疑问。而这些建议其实大都是建设性的，是对进一步提高稿件质量很有益处的，希望作者能以积极的态度对待。同事在审稿时，曾经接二连三的出现过这种情况，虽然不一定是中国的稿件，不过对此还是要引以为戒。当时，一篇稿件投到一本专业内不错的杂志 A 上，由我的一个同事来审稿，作者宣称做出了一个不错的结果，解决了长期困扰这个领域的问题 Q ；而我同事在审稿的时候，发现作者提供的实验证据不足，缺乏最重要的实验证据来证明这个问题 Q 被解决了。基于此，我同事要求作者提供这个实验的结果，而审稿意见定为 major revision 。之后，他也没有收到作者提高的修改稿。本以为事情结束，可在一个多月后，他又收到另一本口碑不错的杂志 B 的审稿邀请，竟然是同一篇手稿。但作者未改动文中的结果讨论与结论部分，而仅仅修改了文章的题目与摘要。显然，这次审稿的结果还是 major revision 了，也还是要求补数据。而在几个月之后，我同事发现这篇稿件竟然又出现一本相对 IF 低的杂志 C 的审稿邀请上（ IF 相对低，并不意味对文章的质量要求低！），作者也还是没有修改结果讨论与结论部分。这次，我的同事不但 reject 了这篇文章，还向编辑部报告了整个事件，之后他就再没有看到这篇文章。其实，某个领域的圈子并不大，审稿人也就那么几个，即便是不同的杂志，也都是找同一批人来审；而且， IF 的高低，只是说杂志的影响力不同，并不意味对文章质量的要求不同。 以上一些个人的体会，希望各位同行能共同努力，既发好文章，也进一步规范整个环境，提高中国科研的影响力！
本文由《科技导报》在其2011年的第8期《读者之声》栏目刊出，附pdf文件： 2011-08 To be a reviewer.pdf 大家从事科研工作，特别是对正在读博或者博士刚毕业不久的年轻科研人员来说，能够独立审稿（作为reviewer or referee),是一件令人非常兴奋的事情。这并不是说审稿能挣多少钱（实际上大多数审稿都是免费义务服务的），而是说明在你那个领域里，你得到了编辑或者同行专家们的认可。而认可或许正是给年轻科研人员的一个鼓励，抑或是一剂兴奋药。这里写一段自己第一次获得独立审稿机会的经历，希望能提供一点信息。 在读博士期间，老板经常会收到一些杂志社的邀请来审稿，比如Appl Phys Lett和J Appl Phys等杂志。老板并不是那种特别忙的人，但他是一个愿意培养学生的人。因而，在他收到审稿邀请后，他会有时候特意让他的学生首先来审。我就有过2次这样的经历，我把我的意见告诉老板后，他会仔细帮我分析那些意见是好的，哪些意见是不好的，还需要加上哪些意见等等。最后，他汇总后，把审稿意见发出去。虽然，大家可能会认为在编辑看来，审稿功劳全是老板他自己的，但我们这些学生确实在此过程中从老板那里学到了很多东西。而这个培养的阶段，在我现在看来，是非常有帮助而且必要的。 后来2009年博士刚毕业的时候，有机会到美国参加了一个国际会议。会议的主席还有很大一部分参会的教授学者都是做SiC方面的，而这正好是我研究的领域。做完会议报告后，自我感觉还不错。另外，在吃饭期间和一些教授聊了聊天，彼此更加了解了一些。但当时也就仅此而已。 去年2010年的某一天，当我像往常一样打开email的时候，突然收到一封来自Journal of Crystal Growth（晶体生长）杂志的审稿邀请。一看邀请我的那个编辑，正好是2009年我参加的那个国际会议的其中一个教授。当时看到这封信的时候，心里小兴奋了一下，感觉自己的工作在某种程度上得到了同行的认可。 但毕竟以前没有独立审过稿件，自己心里没有底，所以我把这件事告诉了我的老板。老板回信告诉我说，从你写文章的水平以及以前你帮我审稿的经历来看，你完全能行的，相信自己；能收到邀请，我真替你高兴等等。有了老板的鼓励，我的心里踏实了很多。后来就认认真真的开始审了。 当我看了一遍要审的那个稿件后，总体第一印象是实验结果还算新颖，而且工作比较系统。但是有个别图有些明显的错误，而且写作的逻辑也不是很好，这些可能是作者本身也没有意识到的。然而文章中有很多明显的语法错误，而且在某处看到英文简写的时候，前面的地方找不到相关的全称，感觉写作的态度不是很认真。但一想该工作本身做的还算可以，该作者说不定也是一个正在读书的博士，每个人都有这么一个过程，我就好好帮他改进吧。我给的总体建议是major revision，写的suggestions or comments足足有5页多。几个月以后，收到了他的校正稿，感觉还有些不太完善的地方，又提了一些小意见，这回是minor revision。后来，又过了一段时间，就收到了编辑的感谢信，说这个稿件已经接受了。 综观这次收到独立审稿的机会，再加上平常和老师朋友聊天得到的消息，个人认为可以通过下列方式得到审稿的机会： A. 自己的老板收到审稿邀请后，他 主动向编辑推荐你 来独立审稿，这样成功的几率是非常大的。一旦编辑对你这次的审稿很满意后，以后可能就直接联系你了； B. 通过开会 ，尽力做好自己的报告。其他时间，多和同行专家们聊聊天。说不定这些教授中哪一天就会邀请你来审稿的； C. 自己发表文章的时候，如果 联系人也是自己 的话，编辑也就知道了你的联系方式。久而久之，说不定有一天编辑也会直接联系你的； D. 你的朋友或你认识的人 在他们提交稿件的时候，推荐你作为他们稿件的审稿人，这样也是有机会让编辑来选择你的； E. 别人的稿件中 引用了你的文献 ，这种情况下编辑也有可能把你列为审稿人； F. 我看到有在BBS上发贴 征求审稿机会 的，让别人来推荐你作为审稿人。在网络发达的今天，说不定这种方式也有用武之地。
大家一直都对中国学界的浮躁风气怨气甚重，但我不知道抱怨者是否真正把科研当事业，当追求去做，尤其是国内刊物的主编和审稿人。 我展示这份审稿意见，主要是让国内的主编和审稿人权衡一下，国内的刊物为什么进入不了国际科研市场。虽然这份审稿意见我很讨厌，因为提出的问题很多，也很细，但仔细一想老外的认真负责，只有敬佩的份了。 Dear mr cao, Thank you for submitting your manuscript 'Using Willingness to Accept (WTA?to Estimate the Ecological Compensation of the Grassland' for review by Rangeland Ecology Management. The reviewers felt that your manuscript has merit, but they identified significant issues that require your attention. Based on these reviews, and their own evaluation, the Associate Editor has recommended further revision of the manuscript. Therefore, I am returning the manuscript to you for revision in accordance with the comments outlined in the reviews (see below). Please incorporate the following formatting issues into your revision. 1. I agree that a more descriptive title could be developed. 2. Correct the headings to follow REM format. 3. Remove the 'preamble' from table 1. This information can be placed in the text and in table caption. 4. Expand the caption of table 3 as indicated by the associate editor. I encourage you to revise this manuscript for resubmission, but please understand that the revision will undergo additional peer review. Therefore, my willingness to encourage a revision should not be taken as an indication that the paper will be immediately accepted for publication. To submit your revision go to http://rem.edmgr.com/ and log in as an Author. You will see a menu item called Submission Needing Revision. It is IMPORTANT that you submit your revision through that menu item, NOT as a new submission. Please develop a rebuttal letter that contains an itemized list of your responses to the specific points made by each reviewer and the Associate Editor. You may choose to not incorporate all recommended modifications in the manuscript; however, you must provide a justification for doing so. Detailed responses to minor grammatical/wording revisions are not required. Please consult the style guide at http://www.srmjournals.org, if you encounter formatting questions. Follow the link For Authors and then Style Manual. The rebuttal letter (response to reviewers' and editor's comments) may be entered in a text box under Respond to Reviewers or as a separate file under Attach Files. If you attach it as a file, select Response to Reviewers, NOT Cover Letter, from the drop down menu next to Item. The revised manuscript, including figures, is due by May 27 2011 12:00:00:000AM. After this date, the manuscript should be submitted as a new manuscript. Send only the latest revision of the manuscript and be sure that it does not contain any track changes comments left in by MS Word. Thank you for selecting REM as your publication outlet. If you have questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, David D. Briske Editor in Chief Rangeland Ecology Management Associate Editor comments: Dear Authors: This paper will be of strong interest to the REM readership. Two reviewers have provided excellent comments and I ask that you pay close attention to them. I have a few things to add, below: The application of Clement's model and a stable carrying capacity is highly doubtful for arid grasslands. Does this make a difference? Need to find ways to cope with unpredictability a rather than counting on a set stocking rate however low. Climate change was not something Clements thought about either. In terms of the abstract, there is no balance and will be no balance between forage and animals under the climate change, disequilibrium system you describe. Please update your ecological references--I think Reviewer 1 has suggested some. It makes a great difference to the policy recommendations. Also, you might think of stressing incremental change and using pilot studies because too often policy change goes way overboard in these areas. How many households total in the specific geographical area selected for sampling, and how were they selected. Not clear what kind of unit Maqu is. Ecosystem? Region? Township? Also what is the basic grazing set up: individuated household land? common areas? What is the history of exclusion--has the available rangeland area been reduced in recent decades? I recommend a map. Would have been interesting to explore the high bids: due to capturing lifestyle or cultural values? Insurance (as per reviewer 1)? Misunderstanding of time frame? It's a fifth of the respondents in the end. Considerable redundancy in last sections. Similar statements are made more than once. The reduction question of the survey should have had a temporal component. Permanently? This year? Timeframe is needed for calculation of NPV. It also seems to assume that herders manage for a set stocking rate. Do they? Table 2: herder families? Head of household? Surely the entire population is not 96% male. Title is not grammatically correct or clear as to the topic. Keywords should not repeat title words. Figures and table captions should be stand alone and should be interpretable without reference to the text: include the who what where, n, measures of variation, etc. Can you tell us a little more, perhaps in the discussion, about what the local people think about compensation as a possibility? I can't quite get a full picture of the context here. Do locals recognize overgrazing as a problem? We look forward to your revision. Reviewer #1: This paper use WTA (willingness to accept) to estimate the minimum acceptable compensation which may encourage herders to reduce animal numbers in Maqu pastoral areas, where overgrazing is believed as the main the reason causing grassland degradation. In terms of the contributions to degradation in Qing-Zang Plateau, recently there are some researches may be useful for the authors: Dorji,T., J. L. Fox, C. Richard, and K. Dhondup. 2010. An Assessment of Nonequilibrium Dynamics in Rangelands of the Aru Basin, Northwest Tibet, China. Rangeland Ecol Manage 63:426-434. Klein, J., Harte, J., Zhao, X., 2007. Experimental warming, not grazing, decreases rangeland quality on the Tibetan Plateau. Ecological Applications 17 (2), 541-557. Given the reasons causing degradation have been disputed, I suggest the authors just focus on the methodologies of WTA itself. WTA is normally applied to estimate something whose value could not evaluated from market. In pastoral areas, the value of livestock could not just be evaluated based on the market price. Because the market price may just reflect the market demands for meat, while the other values in terms of subsistence insurance (when family meet emergency, like sick, they sell animals), dung (as fuel), employment, religion, social status (more livestock, get more respect in the community), and etc, are ignored. Therefore It's right to use WTA instead of just market evaluating to estimate the compensation amount. But I'm confused why the authors eliminate those 5.5% interviewee whose bid value over 10,000 RMB (Page8, line 13-17), which may reflect the true value of the livestock. Minor issues: Abstract: estimated as 1785RMB per year (~$265) for cattle and 503RMB per year (~$75) for sheep. COMMENTS: 1785RMB per year (~$265) per cattle? Or 1785RMB per year (~$265) per family? P2, Line22: view expressed as long ago as 1916 by Clements (Clements 1916). COMMENTS: I suggest authors read some publications about New Rangeland Ecology. Ellis, J. E. and D. M. Swift. 1988. Stability of African pastoral ecosystems: Alternate paradigms and implications for development. Journal of Range Management 41(6):450-459. Westoby, M., B.H. Walker and I. Noy-Meir. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. Journal of Range Management 42:266-274. Page 3, 17-18: The theoretical carrying capacity of Maqu grassland has been calculated as 1,770,131 sheep. Based on government figures up to 2005, COMMENTS: please provide citations. Page5, line 17-18: 30 local staff members of the authorities engaged in the protection of grassland resources, 50 local herders and 30 Masters degree graduates from the School of Life. COMMENTS: explain why officials and students are selected to be interviewee? Page 8, line 17-18: prices i.e. the respondents could evaluate opportunity cost of the livestock if they had to sell it. COMEENTS: why use opportunity cost here? Reviewer #2: The information provided by this CV exercise is interesting at applied level but there is no significant methodological contributions. The paper provides value estimates that can be used for policy making. Its application for grassland restoration valuation could be valuable for Rangeland Ecology Management. Yet, the paper needs some improvements both in the presentation of ideas and concepts and in the editing. I consider that this paper is publishable in Rangeland Ecology Management once major and minor concerns are addressed by the authors. These are the major concerns that I think should be addressed in the paper: * Page 3, line 3: Referring to the compensation needed for herders as an economic cost is somewhat confusing. In the discussion it is also presented the cost caused by overgrazing in the downstream of Yellow River. This latter cost reflects the economic cost caused by overgrazing, while the WTA is the cost that should be assumed to reduce overgrazing. In other words, the WTA is the price that should be paid to herders in order to achieve this overgrazing reduction. My suggestion is refer to the WTA as an economic compensation. * Page 5: the bid design does not follow the conventional procedure. It has been taken into account expert's and student's opinions. For bid design, pilot surveys that target the real sample should be used. It should be admitted that this could have caused some bias in the results. * Page 7, lines 1-10: I think the socioeconomic data of the sample has to be compared with official data from the region if this data is available. The amount of 25,000 RMB is considered as the minimum desirable income for the region. Where does this come from? * Page 7, lines 13-22: I do not agree with the procedure of removing high bids from the sample. The authors must explain in a precise manner the criteria followed for removing these bids. Otherwise, all answers should be included in the analysis. These high bids are referred to as unreasonable bids but it is not defined what an unreasonable bid is. * Page 9: In the discussion section, there is confusion between the concept of costs of river management downstream on the Yellow River and the compensation cost that would be necessary for herders to remove livestock. These costs are compared and they should not be compared because they refer to different situations. It would be interesting to compare the costs of compensation with the reduction of the costs of river management downstream on the Yellow River originated as a consequence of reducing livestock. Then, it could be evaluated if the expected surplus obtained as a consequence of the cost reduction in river management could be used for compensating herders when reducing their livestock herd. * Page 10, lines 15-21: It is not clear to me the relation between the CV exercise and the financial compensation in terms of policies, education or technology. The CV exercise provides estimated of the money compensation required by herders, but there is no estimation about the amount of other compensation, which would imply no direct payment. * I have some questions about the management implications section (page 12). The first point (lines 7-9) is okay, but the second point (10-12) has no direct relation with the CV results. Why richer communities will have to accept contribution towards the cost of compensation? Would it be this fair if they are not responsible of the grassland degradation? Would they have to contribute just because they have more money? Finally, when referring to the need to apply this technique in other regions, I would include that the design of the CV exercise should be improved, especially in the elicitation format design. I also suggest the authors to change the title of the paper, including the specific region where the WTA has been estimated. Right now it is too general, and it can be thought that the study is a review of previous studies on the economic compensation for grassland restoration. The minor concerns about the paper are the following: * In the abstract, it is stated that Willingness to accept compensation (WTA) is a contingent valuation (CV) methodology . WTA is not a methodology; it is a welfare measure that can be estimated through contingent valuation. Also, in the abstract, they have to clarify that the estimations of WTA are RMB per animal. I understand that households are asked to estimate the amount of money they need to receive to give up one cattle or one sheep. * Page 3, line 11: 40,000 refer to population. The unit should be made explicit. * Page 3, line 13: There should be a reference for the data about agricultural income. * Page 3, line 17: The calculated carrying capacity is per year? * Page 4, line 3: Why the indirect damage cannot be quantified? * Page 4, line 21: WTA is referred to as a macroscopic concept. I think this should be explained. * Page 7, line 22: Why weighted mean WTA? Please clarify. * Page 8, line 3: A reference for the inflation data in China in 2010 should be added. * Page 8, lines 5-7: The statement in this sentence is arguable. Would it be that easy for herders? The potential monitoring program should address this to avoid strategic behavior when receiving the compensation payments. * Page 8, line 13: What is rbid? * Page 9, lines 12-20: In this paragraph you can get the idea that the valuation exercise was useless, and I do not think this was the case. I would remove It is very subjective and the results are very difficult to verify. Also, the last sentence (line 20) is very imprecise. What does probably reasonable means? If this cannot be explained more precisely, I would remove it from the text. * Page 11, lines 4-5: I do not see the need of this sentence. I think the WTA offers the compensation that should be offer to the herders anytime the policy wants to be implemented. If it does not work, then it has to be readjusted, but the only information available currently is the obtained form this CV exercise and the animal market prices. * Page 11, lines 15-22: This paragraphs sound more like to be in the Introduction. It does not discuss results neither refer to the results of the analysis presented in the paper.
在今年元月份投了个SCI期刊，很快就有回复，第一个审稿很仔细提了很多细致的问题，如字词的删减。第两人倒是很简单。最后期刊的意见是小修 Comments for the Author: Reviewer #1: This is an interesting study of trends in citation in the Chinese literature. The methods are standard but the data set is new and there is a good analysis of the results. The graphs are lovely too! I recommend acceptance but with major revisions for language, with proof-reading by a native English speaker being needed. Specific comments:..... Reviewer #2: This paper explored, using three indicators, the citing behavior of Chinese scholars in four fields during the past thirty years. The measuring methods are correct and the findings and interesting. Some suggestions:....... 在四月初把修改稿投过去，很快又有意见了，又是小修 第二个很简单的一句话Reviewer #2: The author has revised the manuscript according to the comments. It could be published now. 而第一个，则很认真，提了近两百个语法错误。 Reviewer #1: This is a much improved version of this interesting paper and deserves to be published. The langauge is still poor - as the list of corrections below reveals - but with the corrections it should be OK. Page 1, Title. Change to Chinese scholars'- Page 1, Abstract, line 8. Change More higher percentage of papers needs to be to A higher percentage of papers is needed to. Page 1, Abstract, line 9. Change as years to than. Page 1, Abstract, line 9. Insert the before HHI. Page 1, Abstract, line 10. Insert the before citation. Page 1, Abstract, line 11. Delete The authors assert that. Page 1, Abstract, line 12. Change eas to ease. Page 1, Abstract, lines 13-15. Delete However, a good number.need to be clear.. Page 1, Introduction, lines 1-6. Delete The Third Plenary.; Yang, 2010).. Not objective enough. Page 1, Introduction, line 10. Insert that it before can. Page 1, Introduction, line 12. Delete behavior. Page 1, Introduction, line 12. Change recourses to resources. Page 2, line 1. Delete the Page 2, line 1. Insert a before time. Page 2, line 4. Delete the. Page 2, line 19. Change become to becoming (two instances). Page 2, line 25. Change expand to expanded. Page 2, line 26. Insert the before Chinese. Page 2, line 26. Delete the. Page 2, line 31. Change provide to provides. Page 2, line 33. Insert a before daily. Page 2, line 37. Insert the before case. Page 2, line 37. Change whole to all. Page 2, line 39. Change question mark to full stop. Page 2, line 39. Change time end in 2006 for the point of view of 3 year to the 3-year span. Page 2, line 40. Insert ends in 2006) after year). Page 2, line 40. Chagne paper to papers. Page 2, line 41. Insert the before concentration. Page 3, line 2. Insert which before shows. Page 3, line 5. Delete it. Page 3, lines 13-14. Delete The statistical analysis.(VBA) programs.. Page 3, line 15. Change paper to papers. Page 3, line 20. Delete the before Figure. Page 3, line 23. Delete the before Literature. Page 3, line 23. Change at to in. Page 3, line 26. Change paper to papers. Page 3, line 26. Change on to in. Page 3, line 27. Insert the before percentage. Page 3, line 27. Change range to ranges. Page 3, line 29. Change on to for. Page 3, line 30. Insert the before percentage. Page 3, line 31. Insert the before 1980s. Page 3, line 31. Change are slowly to were slow. Page 3, line 32. Insert the before 1990s. Page 3, line 32. Insert the before percentage. Page 3, line 32. Delete of the. Page 4, line 1. Change good reasons to reason. Page 4, line 3. Change some specific period. For to a specific period, for. Page 4, line 4. Change journal to journals. Page 4, line 4. Change play advantages on to benefit in. Page 4, line 5. Delete the before Larivi鑢e. Page 4, line 5. Change paper in the to papers in. Page 4, line 6. Change the figure to Figure. Page 4, line 6. Change . But to , but. Page 4, line 6. Insert for after less than. Page 4, line 7. Delete the before Humanities. Page 4, line 9. Change figure to Figure. Page 4, line 10. Change the beginning period to first. Page 4, line 11. Change maybe resulted to may result. Page 4, line 12. Change paper to papers. Page 4, line 13. Insert is after WoS. Page 4, line 15. Delete In all,. Page 4, line 15. Change strongly to clearly. Page 4, line 16. Insert the number of before unnoticed. Page 4, line 16. Change becomes fewer and fewer to decreases. Page 4, line 18. Change Figure3, figure4 and figure5 to Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5. Page 4, line 18. Change that to the. Page 4, line 18. Change for contributing to to contribute. Page 4, line 20. Insert the before percentage. Page 5, line 1. Delete the before Literature. Page 5, line 1. Insert the before 1-year. Page 5, line 1. Insert the before percentage. Page 5, line 5. Change on to in. Page 5, line 5. Insert of before papers. Page 5, line 5. Change the 80% to 80% of. Page 5, line 6. Change 30% paper to 30% of papers. Page 5, line 6. Change the 80% to 80% of. Page 5, line 7. Change three and six year to three- and six-year. Page 5, line 7. Change the figure 4 to Figure 4. Page 5, line 8. Change the figure 5 to Figure 5. Page 5, line 8. Change in case of to in the. Page 5, line 9. Change 3 year to three-year. Page 5, line 9. Change 6 year to six-year. Page 5, line 9. Insert cases after six-year. Page 5, line 10. Change on the to in. Page 5, line 11. Change on to in (three instances). Page 5, line 12. Change on to in. Page 5, line 12. Delete the before citations. Page 5, line 14. Change three year to three-year. Page 5, line 14. Change in case of six year to in the six-year case. Page 7, line 1. Change unnormal to abnormal. Page 7, line 2. Change three years and six years to the three-year and six-year. Page 7, line 3. Change begin to began. Page 7, line 4. Change the figure 6 to Figure 6. Page 7, line 4. Change getting down to decreased. Page 7, line 8. Change declining to decline. Page 7, line 9. Change HHI declining to the decline of the HHI. Page 7, line 10. Change the figure 6 to Figure 6. Page 7, line 10. Change on the to in. Page 7, line 10. Change HHI has to the HHI. Page 7, line 13. Delete the before 1979. Page 7, line 13. Change are to is an. Page 7, line 16. Delete is. Page 7, line 18. Change following to follows. Page 7, line 19. Insert the before Web. Page 7, line 22. Insert the before Internet. Page 7, line 23. Delete the. Page 8, line 2. hand down. What does this mean? Page 8, line 4. Change provided convenience for to allowed. Page 8, line 4. Change paper more handily to papers more conveniently. Page 8, line 5. Change digitized can access to , once digitized, can be accessed. Page 8, line 7. Insert were before released. Page 8, line 7. Insert an before equal. Page 8, line 8. Insert them after use. Page 8, line 9. Delete the after from. Page 8, line 10. Change articles to article. Page 8, line 16. Delete the before academic. Page 8, line 17. Change citation changing to change in citation. Page 8, line 18. Insert an in-depth analysis of before its mechanisms. Page 8, line 18. Change need to needs. Page 8, line 19. Delete in-depth analysis. Page 8, line 27. Insert and before how. Page 8, line 28. Delete and. Page 8, line 29. Change increasing of to increase in. Page 8, line 31. Insert are before inversely. Page 8, line 35. Change Firstly to First. Page 8, line 36. Change comma to colon. Page 8, line 37. Delete however. Page 8, line 37. Change a to the before proper. Page 8, line 38. Delete (Wikipedia, 2009). Page 8, line 38. Change Secondly to Second. Page 8, line 40. Delete is. Page 8, line 40. Change Thirdly to Third. Page 8, line 41. Insert a before certain. Page 8, line 42. Change is changing to changes. Page 8, line 42. Change phenomena to phenomenon. Page 9, lines 1-2. Change are increasing to have increased. Page 9, line 2. Change are to were. Page 9, line 2. Delete all in. Page 9, line 3. Delete by. Page 9, line 3. Change time range of three year to three-year time range. Page 9, line 4. Insert were before published. Page 9, line 7. Change percentage to percentages. Page 9, line 8. MacRoberts (2010). Correct reference. Page 9, line 9. Change influence to influences (two instances). Page 9, line 9. Delete of the. Page 9, lines 10-11. Delete Even though.distributions of citations. Page 9, line 11. Insert despite the defects mentioned above, after speaking,. Page 9, line 12. Delete the three indicators. Page 9, line 13. Change through to over. Page 9, line 13. Change are to have been. Page 9, line 14. Change citations to citation. Page 9, line 16. Change the article to articles. Page 9, line 18. Delete need to. Page 9, line 19. Insert whether before our. Page 9, lines 22-24. Delete Since the beginning.(Reddy, 2001).. Not relevant enough. Page 9, line 25. Change distribution of the citation to citation distribution. Page 9, line 26. Delete obviously. Page 9, line 26. Change percentage of the paper to the percentage of papers. Page 9, line 27. Change concentration of the citation to citation concentration. Page 9, line 27. Delete the before four. Page 9, line 28. Change discipline to disciplines. Page 9, line 30. Change with the to of. Page 9, line 30. Change maybe to may be. Page 9, line 31. Change index to indices. Page 9, line 34. Change differ from us to make to in contrast with our. Page 9, line 37. Change Larivi鑢e(2009) to Larivi鑢e (2009). Page 9, line 41. Change from to into. Page 9, line 41. Change what changes. into What has changed?. Page 9, line 42. Delete access to. Page 9, line 43. Insert is accessed after database. Page 10, line 1. Change Why changes. to Why has it changed?. Page 10, line 1. Insert a before detailed. Page 10, line 2. Change as to due to. Page 10, line 3. Change sciences to scientific. Page 10, line 3. Change under to over. Page 10, line 3. Delete environment. Page 10, line 4. Change hot to recent. Page 10, line 4. Insert the before current. Page 10, line 5. Change easy-available to easily available. Page 10, line 5. Change hotter to recent. Page 10, line 6. Change be cited by many times to to be cited many times more. Page 10, line 6. Change this to these. Page 10, line 7. Delete intuitively. Page 10, line 7. Change how to do. to What can be done?. Page 10, line 7. Change analysis to analyse. Page 10, line 8. Change we should to to. Page 10, line 9. Change to better to can this be improved. Page 11. Delete Wikipedia reference. Don't ever cite Wikipedia please because it is not a valid source. 本来想按照编辑的意见，逐条修改了语言就应该OK了，谁知这个审稿人很快又有反馈消息:Minor revisions Comments for the Author: Reviewer: This is OK to publish now but I still recommend a final proof-reading by a native English speaker now . The language is understandable and approximately correct througout but proof-reading would make it easier to read and would ensure that the paper had the audience that it deserves. 只好找了个native English speaker ，整篇修改了一番，果然还存在大量的语法错误，上星期投出，两天后录用。 Dear Prof. , We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript, ***, has been accepted for publication in *. You will be contacted about proofs and offprints in due course by our Manufacturing Department. Any queries concerning your manuscript should now be addressed to 。。。 在这次投稿中有以下几点感想： 国外与国内在科学研究论文方面的差别很大，自己的国内论文也投很多了，一般情况下只有两种情况，录用或退稿，偶尔有的期刊要求退修改，也是简单的几句话。 自己幸运，论文存在许多的错误，遇到好审稿人，没有被毕掉，相反，提出许多改进的建议。 审稿人负责任，作为审稿这样的义务劳动，而且是匿名的，审稿人光打字就要花不少时间，可以说审的比写的还认真！这样的审稿对论文的提高是很有帮助。 自己英语水平需要大大的提高，有些常见的小语法错误在论文中重复出现了多次。
现代生物科学关于老年色素研究的第一本国际权威著作由美籍印度学者主编，该学者从此在该领域，声名鹊起，独霸一方。关于老年色素研究的系列国际会议连续开了六届。作为该领域另一位 权威 教授，瑞典国家医学会副主席乌尔夫-波龙克的学生，有幸出席了最后几届该系列会议，踏及世界诸国，交会各路豪杰，将老年色素的生化形成机理写成了我的博士论文，也写成了一些集大成综述（综述发表后该系列国际会议从此没有再开）。我们的工作为老年色素研究竖立了一个近乎结论的里程碑，然而也无意中夺取了别人头顶耀眼的光环。从此在该领域，中国人不再无足轻重，中国人成为竞争对手，中国崛起与中国威胁论一起被提上了议事日程。在当年集大成综述被审稿的过程中，我隐约感到了科学竞争的残酷，一句该领域的常识用语老年色素是生物体衰老的重要指标被指责为盗用了 xxx 的原创思想 十多年后，当我们的广义衰老学说又落在了 xxx 国际权威学术大师的手中，其命运可想而之。 如果说审稿大师超一流的夺命否定并没有直截了当的刀起头落，然而在故意歪解和近乎无赖（也许是无知）的审稿评论的字里行间随处都可以感觉到 泰山压顶式的刀光剑影。 无奈，只有一件事可做据理力争！ 或者在烈火中凤凰涅槃，或者在烈火中化为灰烬 （先给英文原文 , 中文译文在后） 《 Experimental Gerontology 》杂志编辑部来信： Dear Dr. Yin, We have now received the comments to your article mentioned above from the referees. Could you please comment on them and let us have your reply as soon as possible? Reviewer 1: The review authored by Dazhong Yin and Keji Chen entitled The Essential Mechanisms of Aging: Irreparable Damage Accumulation of Biochemical Side-Reactions argues for a mechanism of aging. As stated by the authors: In summary, direct DNA damage and mutation in comparison with protein impairments are either less important or disease-related, which may not be the crucial issue of physiological aging of higher animals. Whereas biological systems of anti-stresses, protein turnover, metabolisms and homeostasis regulated by genetic network are the key elements of aging mechanisms, various irreparable accumulations of protein alterations induced by spontaneous biological side-reactions turn out to be the center of aging biochemistry. The authors state that there are numerous hypotheses of aging. They conclude that protein cross-linking brought about by free radical derived mechanisms is the most important determinant of normal aging. Unfortunately, this conclusion is neither novel nor is it supported by literature precedence. While cross-linked forms of protein do appear to accumulate during aging the functional consequence of this accumulation is largely unknown. The authors simply assume that this in turn results in deranged function. In addition, the authors do not make a convincing argument for why other theories can be excluded other than referencing these claims with articles that do not support their contention. In short, this review does little more than repackage a hypothesis that has been stated before and does little to convince the reader of its validity. Reviewer 2: This is a clearly written review of the many factors that are associated with the aging process and merits publication. The only issue that might give a wrong impression is the statement (top 3 lines on page 11) that protein degradation is a result rather than a cause of aging. It is well established that oxidation of proteins renders them susceptible to proteolytic degradation. Accordingly, a decline with age in the levels of proteases that degrade oxidized proteins may lead to the accumulation of oxidatively modified proteins, which the author points out is an important function in aging. An error on page 23, line 9: A basic notion... not An basic notion.... 我们给编辑部的回复： Dear Dr. Beatrix, Thank you very much for facilitating the publication of our review paper The essential mechanisms of aging: irreparable damage accumulation of biochemical side-reactions ( Ms.#7078) and sending us the reviewers comments on March 22, 2005. We are delighted to read that the reviewers have confirmed positively our scientific and literature descriptions on current status of aging studies (as this topic covered an enormous huge realm, its very hard to command all relevant fields) just as the 1 st Reviewer concluded in his comments this review does little more than repackage a hypothesis that has been stated before . Referring to reviewers comments we wish to present our discussions as follows: 1) The reviewer 1 stated: They conclude that protein cross-linking brought about by free radical derived mechanisms is the most important determinant of normal aging. We regret to say this is a misunderstanding of our proposed theory. The free radical mechanisms, in our opinion, is narrow-minded (as we have already clarified in our Ms.) in explaining aging mechanisms. Our key issue about the causes of aging (not yet the aging mechanisms) are biological side-reactions, particularly those side-reactions related to biological energy metabolisms. For instance, the diabetes accelerated glycation and related carbonyl stress may also be very critical for physiological aging alterations. 2) The reviewer 1 continued: Unfortunately, this conclusion is neither novel nor is it supported by literature precedence. The free radical mechanisms of aging is surely not novel (and even is scientifically problematic), but the biological side-reactions, the entropy biochemistry of aging, the focusing on process beyond causes, the direct DNA damages and mutations are mainly disease-related , and the carbonyl stress may be one of the most crucial culprits of aging are all our original contributions in the review as well as in the scientific field related. 3) The reviewer 1 also stated: While cross-linked forms of protein do appear to accumulate during aging the functional consequence of this accumulation is largely unknown. It is true that the functional consequence of intra-cellular accumulates, such as lipofuscin, is largely unknown. However, a variety of other crosslinkage-related functional retardations are well studied and some examples are listed below: a) opacity of lens and further cataract formation due to cross-linked crystallins b) crosslinkage of elastic tissues (e.g. collagen in blood vessels) during aging c) increase of AGEs (GOLD, MOLD, CML, pentosidine et al.) and ALEs d) cellular membrane and cytoskeleton rigidity and in-solubility e) increased thickness of glomerular basement membrane f) multiple fibrosis during aging (speeded by inflammation) g) stiffening of joints, decline of lung elasticity, et al. h) and probably atherosclerosis and amyloid formation due to deficient clearance Moreover, organ-specific and disease-accelerated protein alterations may largely be viewed as speeded aging-related changes (when repairing is disturbed or inhibited). The author would also refer to a recent review by Grune and Davies (2004) IJBCB, 36: 2519-2530 for obtaining more information about protein aggregation during aging. 4) Finally, the reviewer 1 wrote: In addition, the authors do not make a convincing argument for why other theories can be excluded. this review does little more than repackage a hypothesis that has been stated before and does little to convince the reader of its validity. We wonder why reviewer 1 suggested us to exclude the other theories and tended to overlook the validity of our hypothesis as well. Our theory has evolved from those principal aging hypotheses and many of them are our solid foundation. We are standing on a stage supported by numerous scientific achievements in the related fields, so they are not going to be excluded arbitrary rather being interpreted properly. A specific progress we made is that we went down to a sub-molecular level and extracted the essential (general) biochemistry behind the aging process. This is obviously much more than a simple repackage (also see point 2), rather approaching (or revealing?) a resolution of the ever confusing mechanism of aging. 5) The reviewer 2 thinks that might give a wrong impression is the statement that protein degradation is a result rather than a cause of aging. It is well established that oxidation of proteins renders them susceptible to proteolytic degradation. We believe that protein degradation is neither a result nor a cause of aging. Protein degradation (for an adult), in our opinion, is mainly for routing restorative turnover or repairing of damages due to biological side-reactions. We fully agree with further statement by reviewer 2: A decline with age in the levels of proteases that degrade oxidized proteins may lead to the accumulation of oxidatively modified proteins . We wish to acknowledge our sincere thanks for his kind suggestion on an error correction on page 23. We hope these discussion answered the reviewers questions clearly and correctly. Best Regards ！ Dazhong Yin Professor, Chairman of the Aging Biochem Lab Hunan Normal University 实验老年学杂志编辑部来信（译文） : 亲爱的 印 博士， 我们现在已经得到了审稿人对你们的综述文章的意见。 请对他们的意见作出评论，并且尽快给我们回复。 审稿专家 1 ： 印大中和陈可冀的综述 衰老机制本质：生物化学副反应损伤的失修性累积 提出了一个衰老机制。 如作者所说总之，尽管直接的 DNA 损伤和突变与种种老年性疾病息息相关，但与衰老过程中生理性的无所不在的蛋白质损变的积累相比， DNA 损伤的影响则为次重要或主要呈现病理特征。尽管由遗传所调控的抗应激、蛋白质更新、新陈代谢和机体稳态等基因网络系统扮演着高等动物衰老的先天性制约因子的角色，而自发进行的生化副反应导致的机体失修性改变则为环境相关因素导致衰老的主要表现形式。 作者罗列了众多衰老假说。 他们认为自由基导致的蛋白质交联是正常老化最重要的决定因素。 令人遗憾，这个结论既不新鲜也没有文献的支持。蛋白质的交联确实似乎在衰老过程中积累，但这个积累的后果基本上未知。作者仅仅是假设该积累造成了机体功能的紊乱。另外，作者没有提出可信的论点来说明为什么其他衰老理论可以被排除。简而言之，这篇综述仅仅是在简单重新包装以前已经被阐明的诸多衰老假说，很难能使读者信服它的价值。 审稿专家 2 ： 该综述写作清楚，给出了与衰老过程相关的诸多因素，值得发表。唯一可能产生错误印象的地方是说蛋白质降解是衰老的一个结果而不是衰老的起因 ( 在第 11 页上的前 3 条线 ) 。 然而确定的事实是蛋白质的氧化使得它们更易受到降解。因此，蛋白酶水平增龄性下降可能导致蛋白质的氧化性损伤累积，正如作者指出那是衰老的一个重要的表 象。 另外，在第 23 页第 9 行： A basic notion... 不是 An basic notion... . 我们的回复（译文） : 非常感谢协助我们的综述文章衰老机制本质：生物化学副反应损伤的失修性累积 (#7078) 的发表进程和寄给我们审稿专家（ 2005 年 3 月 22 日 ）的意见。我们很高兴注意到审稿专家对我们关于衰老研究的科学描述和文献知识的认可 ( 衰老问题涉及到非常巨大的研究领域，贯通掌握相关的学科领域本身就已非常难能可贵 ) 。正象第 1 审稿专家在他的意见里断定： 这篇综述将过往的种种理论重新装配成了一个新假说 . 参照审稿专家的意见，我们提出讨论如下： 1) 审稿专家 1 说： 作者断定自由基伤害造成的蛋白质交联是最重要的正常衰老的决定因素 。我们遗憾地说这是对我们提出的衰老理论的一个误读。我们认为，以自由基损伤解释衰老机制是狭隘的 ( 我们已经在综述里阐明 ) 。我们关于衰老起因 ( 且不谈衰老的机制 ) 的关键词是 生化副反应 ，特别是那些与生物能量代谢有关的生化副反应。例如，糖尿病加速的非酶糖基化过程以及与之相关的羰基应激，也可以是生理性衰老改变的重要原因。 2) 审稿专家 1 继续说道： 令人遗憾，这个结论（自由基损伤蛋白质造成交联衰老）既不新鲜也没有文献的支持 。我们同意：衰老的自由基机制肯定不是新理念 ( 并且在科学上很成问题 ) 。 不过 生化副反应 ， 衰老的熵增生物化学 ， 在衰老原因之外关注衰老过程 ， 直接的 DNA 损害和突变主要与老年病有关 ， 以及羰基应激可能是生物体老化最主要的罪犯 等理念都是我们在本文中的原创，同样也是对于相关科学领域的原创性贡献。 3) 审稿专家 1 又说： 蛋白质的交联确实似乎在衰老过程中积累，但这个积累的后果基本上未知 。可以认为这些交联蓄积的后果在细胞内部还基本不明，例如脂褐素对细胞功能的影响基本未知。然而，大量其它与蛋白质交联相关的机体功能退变已被研究得非常深入，现举例如下： a) 由于眼球晶体蛋白交联造成的眼球晶体混浊和白内障的形成 b) 伴随衰老出现的弹性蛋白及组织的交联硬化 ( 例如在血管里的胶原 ) c) 与龄俱增的 AGEs (GOLD, MOLD, CML, pentosidine) and ALEs 等 d) 随增龄而出现的细胞膜和细胞骨架的刚性增加和溶解度下降 e) 伴随衰老进程出现的肾小球基底膜增厚 f) 在老化期间越来越普遍的器官纤维化 ( 被炎症加速 ) g) 伴随衰老出现的关节变硬和肺组织的弹性下降等等 h) 以及也许由于代谢产物清理缺陷而形成的动脉粥样硬化和淀粉样蛋白形成 另外，有器官特异性的和被疾病加速的蛋白质结构改变也基本上可被认为是被加速了的衰老表象 ( 一旦机体的修复机能被扰乱或者被抑制 ) 。 在此，作者也提请大家注意参考 Grune 和 Davies 最新发表的综述 (2004) IJBCB ， 36 ； 2519-2530 以获得更多的关于衰老过程中蛋白质聚集变性的资料。 4) 最后，审稿专家 1 写到： 另外，作者没有提出可信的论点来说明为什么其他衰老理论可以被排除。简而言之，这篇综述仅仅是在简单重新包装以前已经被阐明的诸多衰老假说，很难能使读者信服它的价值 。我们觉得奇怪为什么审稿专家 1 建议我们否定其它衰老理论的价值并且倾向于也忽略我们的学说的价值。我们的理论从那些当今最主要的衰老学说中逐步衍生发展而成，它们中的许多理论是我们衰老学说的坚实基础。我们站在一个有着很多科学成就支持的平台上，因此那些学说不会被粗暴地排除而只会被正确地解读。我们的衰老学说取得的独特的进步是我们走入了一个新水平亚分子水平，并且抽象出了潜藏在衰老过程背后的基本的 ( 广义的 ) 生物化学本质。这远远超过 ( 也可参见本回答中的第 2 点 ) 审稿专家 1 所说的简单重新包装；相反，接近 ( 或揭示 ) 了一个至今仍无比混乱的衰老机制的极佳答案。 5) 审稿专家 2 说：该文 唯一可能产生错误印象的地方是说蛋白质降解是衰老的一个结果而不是衰老的起因，然而确定的事实是蛋白质的氧化使得它们更易受到降解。 我们认为，蛋白质被降解既不是衰老的结果也不是衰老的原因。在我们看来，蛋白质降解 ( 对于成年人来说 ) 主要是机体对于日常生化副反应损害的修复和更新。我们完全赞成审稿专家 2 的观点： 蛋白酶水平增龄性下降可能导致蛋白质的氧化性损伤累积。 ，我们诚挚感谢审稿专家 2 关于改正在第 23 页上的一项错误的友好建议。 我们希望这些讨论清楚而正确回答了审稿专家的问题。 最好的祝福！ 印大中 湖南师范大学 教授， 衰老生化研究室 主任
自2006年以来，本人荣幸地成为国内外十余种期刊的审稿人，国内期刊包括自动化学报和电子学报等，国外期刊包括computers and industrial engineering, computers and operations research, international journal of production research等，有一次，居然还收到一份来自南非的审稿邀请，通过审稿，学到了很多东西，中文期刊的评语一般相对简单，了了数语就能决定一篇论文的命运，国外期刊，特别是那些办刊历史较长的高水平期刊，对评语的要求比较高，往往从摘要开始，对论文进行逐一评价，以支持最终的结论，一般要用大半页的文字。也曾经出过洋相，有一次审稿，提了很多论文表达方面的意见，结果大多数意见遭到作者的反驳，让人感到很惭愧和尴尬，不过，也就这一次，所给出的意见遭到作者的较大规模的反对。 现在的期刊是层出不穷，很多名不见经传的期刊不断出现，有的出版公司就出几份期刊，这些期刊往往是开放存取的，所谓OA期刊，由于期刊数量大增，导致邀请审稿的量也增多不少，每个月都要处理一些，有时候太忙或懒得审稿时， 那些论文就像自己欠下的债 ，既然承诺审稿，自然就得按时提交评审意见，如果愈期不提交审稿意见，编辑会催促，如果经常拖欠，也会失去编辑的信任，虽然对自己没有什么损失，但辜负别人的信任，终究也不太好。因此，一般情况下，只要编辑催了一次，我就会在几天内反馈我的意见。
IF-score ，也就是影响因子, 现在几乎人人都知道 。但是知道 R-score 和 M-score 是什么的人，恐怕就很少了。 影响因子从一个方面反映一个期刊杂志的好坏。然而，一个学术期刊办得好坏，当然和其主编有很大关系， 但最终还是和该期刊的审稿者的学术水平有关。 A journal is as good as its reviewers. 许多期刊的主编如是说。 现在大多主流国际期刊的投稿、审稿、及处理都是在网上完成的，且大多采用一些通用的软件， 如 ScholarOne 。 这个软件为稿件处理带来了极大的方便。 比如， 在挑选审稿人时， 如果他 / 她已经为期刊审过稿，则除了他 / 她的专长、以前审稿所用的平均时间等数据之外，还有 2 个重要的数据：即 R-score 和 M-score 。 R-score 是所有编辑给审稿者的平均 R-score 评分。 R-score 评分由以下 4 部分组成，每部分 1-5 分，但在算总分时，第 4 部分对于编辑来说更重要，所用权数为 3 ，即乘以 3 。 故总分最低为 6 分，最高为 30 分。 １ . Did the reviewer discuss the importance of the research questions and the originality of the paper? ２ . Did the reviewer clearly identify the strengths and weaknesses of the method (study design, data collection and data analysis) and comment on the presentation and interpretation of the results? 3 . Were the reviewers comments constructive and did they supply appropriate evidence using examples from the paper to substantiate their comments? 上面３个问题，回答如果是 Not at all, 那么只有 1 分， 而如果是另一个极端，则是 5 分（满分）。 4. How would you rate the quality of this review overall? 若是 poor ，则为 1 分；若为 Excellent ， 则为 5 分。 R-score 为总分除以 4 之商，故 R-score 最低为 1.5 分， 最高为 7.5 分。 M-score 为该审稿者 M-score 评分的平均值，就一篇稿件来说， M-score 也就是审稿者打出的评分。评分的高低，就决定了该稿件接受发表或被拒的命运。 M-score 的具体评分如下： Accept as is High Priority score = 1 Medium Priority score = 2 Low Priority score = 3 Accept minor revision High priority score = 4 Medium Priority score = 5 Low Priority score = 6 Major revision High Priority score = 7 Medium Priority score = 8 Low Priority score = 9 Reject outright score = 10 一个审稿者的 M-score 可以反映出其拒稿率的高低。 比如一个审稿者的 M-score 为 7.35 ， 那么他 / 她的拒稿率还是相当高的。 对一个审稿者来说，一旦为某个期刊审过稿，那么他的 R-score 及所审稿件的 M-score 都会留在数据库里。作为一个负责一篇论文的编辑， 就得注意所选的、或潜在的审稿者的 R-score 及 M-score 了。在选择潜在的审稿者时， 一般应挑选 R-score 大于 5.5 分。 上面所介绍的 M-score 及 R-score ，虽然是 ScholarOne 稿件处理软件所用， 但该软件非常普及，许多期刊都用该软件。其他的稿件处理软件也非常类似。 不管好坏与否， M-score 及 R-score 看来在今后一段时间，还会存在。对未来的审稿者来说在知道这 2 个 score 之后，意味着要小心了， 因为你的 performance 将会被存在一个数据库中。当然， 除非你做的一锤子买卖。 国外期刊的审稿过程总的来说相当程序化。不知国内期刊的审稿是否采用了类似的方法？
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 。
标签: 审稿
