Dear SE, Since the formal operation of the JMS online manuscript system, many of you have already done initial review on manuscripts submitted to JMS before they’re sent out for peer-review. Your initial review has played a very important role in guaranteeing manuscript quality, shortening manuscript processing period, and reducing later manuscript handling workload. P ossiblywe didn’t give you a clear guide, thus up to now, some SEs still don’t know how to doinitial review, some don’t respond to us after receiving the initial review invitation, some delay several days after the required review date is due. In order to ensure your smooth initial review in the future, we prepare a new PPT for you. Best regards to you QIU Dunlian Journal of Mountain Science SE initial review guide (new).pdf
Scientific Editor (SE) in JMSconducts initial review on a newly submitted manuscript based on their professional knowledge. This ppt is to guidethe SEshow to login and manage their account in JMS's ScholarOne Manuscript Center, and how to conduct manuscript scoring. 科学编辑审稿指南.pdf
The answer is absolutely. This is because there are so many mediocre journals in each field. Why should you take what I say seriously? Because I am a freelance English editor, who has been helping authors to publish their manuscripts for more than three years. This blog is to answer a question raised by Publishing: A helping hand by Karen Kaplan Journal name: Nature Volume: 468 , Pages: 721723 Year published: (2010) DOI: doi:10.1038/nj7324-721a Published online 01 December 2010 Manuscript-editing services are growing. Can they turn a mediocre paper into a publishable one? And at what cost?
When the paper is ready to (be) submit(ed), says Wojtal, the author should devise a cover letter that includes a brief synopsis of the article's argument, and suggestions for a few potential reviewers, as well as those who should be excluded. Such information, he says, can be very helpful to busy editors, who want to know who is familiar with the work and will be easy to reach. Authors should not suggest reviewers who are personal friends or institutional colleagues; including those people could immediately erode the editor's trust. Authors need to find a balance it is fine to exclude a couple of reviewers who are direct competitors or known naysayers, but restricting too many qualified reviewers can backfire. As an author, your job is to make the editor's job as easy as possible , says Blumberg. By Kendall Powell To read the original article, go to Publish like a pro By Kendall Powell Journal name: Nature Volume: 467 , Pages: 873875 Year published: (2010) DOI: doi:10.1038/nj7317-873a Published online 13 October 2010 Prolific authors and journal editors share how to get manuscripts noticed, approved and put in print.
A Letter from the Editor Beyond X 2.0: Where Should We Go? Fei-Yue Wang I believe data mining methods are critical to both the era of Web 2.0 and beyond it; where everyone is either acting as a data-mining-driven agent or conducting agent-driven data mining. Our special issue on Agents and Data Mining covers key research topics, applications, and resources of agent mining research and development. This emerging field could make Web 2.0 even more effective and useful. The special issue reminds me of an essay I read some time ago in Computer World (the Chinese version) which stated that Web 2.0 is a great lie in the course of web history. The author claimed that: 1) Web 2.0 is an empty concept; 2) Web 2.0 is misleading; 3) Web 2.0 is unscientific; and 4) Web 2.0 takes credit for many past and emerging web innovations without justification. I was surprised by this essay, not by the authors accusations, but by his seriousness about the academic merit and logic of Web 2.0. While I was writing this letter on my flight across the Pacific, I happened upon an article in The Economist titled Six years in the Valley, which explained the conceptualization and motivation behind Web 2.0. Towards the end of 2003, two conference organizers Dale Dougherty and Tim OReilly coined the term in an effort to rally Silicon Valley from its nuclear winter after the dotcom burst. The first Web 2.0 Conference took place October 2004 in San Francisco and created a stir. Since then Web 2.0 has become a wildly popular phrase, so much so that Mr. OReilly started fretting that it become a clich, and was being applied to so many things that it was in danger of becoming meaningless. Even worse some have started to fear that behind the Web 2.0 totem of collective intelligence an insidious digital Maoism that suppressed individuality. Others have observed an unhealthy trend towards continuous partial attention, as people spent less time focusing on a single thing or person because they were constantly scanning so many other thingsfrom Facebook to e-mail and their phonesfor fear of missing out on some social opportunity. The most dangerous aspect is that Web 2.0 derives its principal economic support from advertising, but with todays world financial crisis, advertisement is collapsing. Thus, Web 2.0 could send the Valley to yet another nuclear winter. So where do we go from here? From Web 2.0 to X 2.0 Fortunately, the main value of Web 2.0 is not its economic worth, but its social and cultural contributions, not in just Silicon Valley , but in Cyberspace. In terms of technology or science, there is nothing new or innovative in Web 2.0. It is neither reasonable nor fair to ask two conference organizers to provide a technical breakthrough in web technology. However, Web 2.0 is indeed a breakthrough in inspiring a new attitude towards interacting and sharing through the internet, cultivating a new lifestyle in cyberspace. We have witnessed the impact of Web 2.0 by watching X 2.0 mushrooming everywhere: Politics 2.0, Government 2.0, Education 2.0, Science 2.0, Business 2.0, Publishing 2.0, Entertainment 2.0, Emergency 2.0, you name it! Mr. BarackObama was dubbed the President 2.0, elected in the first real Campaign 2.0. Last year, I myself wrote an article about Management 2.0 and gave a presentation on Control 2.0 to graduate students at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. With X 2.0 all over the place, our life is now even more closely intertwined with the Web, changing our lifestyle forever. As a business model, Web 2.0 may continue to sell negligible advertising, but its grander vision emerges from a rapid and interactive social dynamic process governed by Mertons self-fulfilling prophecy . With the semantic web dubbed Web 3.0, and perhaps social computing as Web 4.0, the future of the Web is getting to be more and more fascinating. Soon, Cyberspace, the so-called virtual space, will be as real to us as our familiar physical space. Like the mathematical concept of complex numbers, which includes both real and imagery numbers, with each taking 50% of the total, our future living environments should be called complex spaces, half physical and half virtual. If you think this is simply a far-reached fantasy, then think back to 400 years ago, when imagery numbers were thought not to exist. Today, they are half of all numbers. As the concept of numbers has changed, the concept of spaces will evolve as well. I am sure this time that it will take us less than 400 years to realize that cyberspace is as real as anything and will be half of our future world, no more, no less, just half. Although the progression from Web 2.0 to X 2.0 and beyond is driven by technology, it is essentially a social and cultural phenomenon. Web 2.0 is not a great lie in the Webs history; rather its social dimension simply makes a purely academic judgment invalid. Why X 2.0 Matters: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly X 2.0 is the first step towards a new world in an open and primitive complex space that intertwines real and virtual. However, this is not the reason why it matters: X 2.0 matters because of the unprecedented level of scale and speed of its social impact and consequence . A vivid example is the Human Flesh Search Engine, a new phenomenon that has swept China in recent years: unexpected digital witch hunts of common people with uncommon behaviors. Ordinary Chinese netizens can become cyber-vigilantes and online communities can turn into the worlds largest lynch mobs, sometimes for the good, sometimes for the bad and sometimes just plain ugly. Wielding the vast human power behind the web, the every detail of targeted victims, from their private information to their social networks, were combed through, dug up and published on hundreds of forums and chat rooms. With close to 300 million Chinese citizens wired up to the Internet, a large number of netizens can be easily mobilized to participate in such a search; the vb results are fearful and uniquely Chinese! Thus far, a few local government officials were arrested for corruptions uncovered by the human flesh search, initiated by their exorbitant use of luxury items. Their crimes, such as smoking expensive cigarettes or wearing expensive watches, were spotted in public meetings by netizens. However, the few who dare to be outspoken or behave eccentrically have to face, unjustified, the wrath of an online mob; a few, including a college girl and an actress, were murdered or committed suicide as a direct result of tremendous anger or peer pressure launched by the human fresh search, all for insignificant or unproved wrongdoings! Some local Chinese legislators have passed bills seeking toban the human flesh search engine. Their actions have sparked a nationwide controversy over an individual's right to privacy versus the public's right to the truth. On a lighter note, the Internet has produced many web versions of a modern Cinderella story, as witnessed recently by Scottish singer Susan Boyles instant rise to fame, which was possible only with the facilitation of Web 2.0 applications such as YouTube, Facebook , and Twitter . Boyles story has an earlier Chinese version, called Lotus Sister, where an average girl was able to achieve sudden fame by posting her weird poses on campus forums, and subsequently made a living off her phenomenal Internet success. While I am happy for these instant Web 2.0 stars, I am worried about the potential use of such tools by criminals or terrorists for insidious purposes. To them, true or false, good or bad, does not matter; it is the result that matters. This is why I have called such phenomena web tumors, so far they have been benign, but we must be prepared in case they become malignant to web cancers. All of this convinces me that the Tower of Babel story has an important point. Some times, we must curb our ability and slow our desires and pride. Beyond X 2.0 I believe there must be a balance between the capacities of technology, humanitys adaptability, and natures sustainability, but we must move forward. The first thing we need is a new framework for computational sociology suitable for complex analysis in complex spaces and real-time computable when dealing with issues of cyber/physical interactions. A century ago, studies of particles, the universe, and the speed of light led to such modern theories in physics as relativity, cosmology, and quantum mechanics, it has since developed into the basis of our current technology, including web technology. Social studies face the same problem now: while the web is able to link all individuals (social particles) to the whole population (social universe) through instant information change at the speed of light, to move forward safely and effectively as a society, we must find the modern physics counterpart of sociology for social studies. Another important thing is that we need to think about the bigger picture and change our attitude toward web technology and X 2.0 applications. The industrial age was built upon natural resources (coal, ore, crude oils, etc), and extended our physical space and capacity greatly. From those resources, we have developed steel, energy, chemical and other industries. Now we are at the edge of the knowledge age and our intellectual space and capacity can be extended significantly, but where and what are the natural resources and industries for this new age? I believe data in cyberspace must be one of major resources for the construction of this new age and search engines are one example of its corresponding new industries. More knowledge industries can come out of Web 2.0 and X 2.0; this is where we should go next. C omputers started as simple computing devices and developed into computer sciences and information technology, now the Internet created for a platform for easier communication is developing into new web technology and sciences. As a result, I hope our intellectual space and capacity will be enhanced greatly and that the knowledge age will soon be as mature as the industrial or information age. The road to this destination may be uncertain and cloudy, but luckily, we now have cloud computing and fuzzy logic to help. For our readers, one thing is very clear, AI and intelligent systems will be critical to our final success . A Letter from Editor (From IEEE Intelligent Systems)
A Letter from the Editor Is Culture Computable? Fei-Yue Wang I enjoyed reading the articles in this special issue on AI Cultural Heritage , thanks to the great effort of our guest editors. The issue summaries the state of the art in this area with interesting and successful results. Clearly, AI has played and will continue to play a vital role in preserving, enhancing, and presenting our cultural heritage. Here I would like to discuss a related topic: the emerging field of social and cultural computing, which is a natural extension of the research work described in this issue. The demand is urgent for effective computing methods to deal with various social and cultural problems such as homeland security and the world financial crisis. AI should and must play the key role in addressing these issues. However, this begs the question, is culture really computable? At this point, I have no definitive answer; it all depends on the answer to the follow-up question, In what sense? To a large degree, I believe that if we can solve the problem of reasoning or computing with common senses, then we should be able to conduct culture or social computing effectively. But common senses is currently out of question because the topic itself still reminds one of the most difficulty challenges in AI research. Although the answer to the fundamental computability of culture is not clear, we must forge ahead because we simply cannot afford the consequence of avoiding cultural computing now. Over the past three years, our magazine has been leading the effort in promoting this new field by publishing important articles and dedicating a related special issue to this emerging field. Many similar activities have been launched recently around the world, for examples, ACM Beijing Chapters Workshop on Societal Security Informatics in 2006, Chinas 299 th Xiang Shan Scientific Conference on Social Computing in April 2007 (Figure 1), Harvards Workshop on Computational Social Sciences in December 2007, International Conference on Social Computing (SoCo 2008) (in conjunction with the 2008 IEEE Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics), and Beijings Seminar on Social Computing, a regular academic salon series for open scientific discussion funded by the Chinese Association of Science and Technology (Figure 2). Since last May, AAAS Science has also published at least four articles directly related to social and cultural computing, and I am glad to see that some articles are based on research reported earlier in Intelligent Systems . Will those activities bring us hope or hype towards a solid scientific foundation for social and cultural computing? I am hopeful and optimistic, and believe this could be the beginning of a new era in computing that would seamlessly integrate information technology with social sciences in a connected world. Of course, this is far from futurist Ray Kurzweils singularity, the point where the functionality of the human brain is quantifiable in terms of technology that we can build (some also claim that, at the singularity, machine intelligence will surpass our human intelligence, for good or bad), but I do hope the final success of social and cultural computing will bring us close to statistician I. J. Goods intelligence explosion . To this end, our RD effort for social or cultural computing must incorporate concepts and methods from several other related emerging areas. Computational Thinking Computer scientist Jeannette M. Wing, in her essay Computational Thinking published in the Communication of ACM , argued that computational thinking represents a universally applicable attitude and skill set everyone, not just computer scientists, would be eager to learn and use. She also advocated that to reading, writing, and arithmetic, we should add computational thinking to every childs analytical ability. When this vision becomes realty, or at least a reality among social and cultural researchers, then a solid discipline of social and cultural computing will be created and utilized everywhere and by everyone. This will require a long term project of tremendous effort, but the concept of computational thinking could bring both instant help and long term benefit to research and education of social and cultural computing. With computational thinking, descriptive hypotheses and processes in social sciences and cultural studies can be reformulated into computational procedures for quantitative analysis. Furthermore, various derivatives of social laws, such as Mertons self-fulfilling prophecy , might be used as governing laws for social dynamic systems, similar to governing laws, like Newtons laws, for natural or physical processes. For example, in social-technological areas, Moores Law has been quite helpful in facilitating business planning and product development for semiconductor related industries. Other eponymous laws, such as Metcalfes, Reeds, Sarnoffs laws, might also be valuable for social computing and cultural modeling. Russell and Popper If you think sociologist Merton is too ambiguous for scientific computing, lets delve even further into the teachings of philosopher s Bertrand Russell and Karp Popper. In his famous lecture Why I Am Not A Christian , delivered more than 80 years ago in London, Russell stated that a great many things we thought were natural laws are really human conventions, the laws at which you arrive are statistical averages of just the sort that would emerge from chance, and the whole idea that natural laws imply a lawgiver is due to a confusion between natural and human laws. For many, his statements and arguments made this whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was, as a result, I hope it has also justified the use of generalized Mertons laws in scientific computing. If you have little confidence in Russells idea, Poppers theory of reality may help you. His model of the universe includes three interacting worlds: World 1 the physical world, World 2 the mental world, and World 3 the artificial world of products from the human mind . World 3 is home to abstract objects such as theories , stories , myths , tools , social institutions , and works of art . It contains the objective knowledge upon which all scientific theories are formed, which enables them to be criticized and potentially falsified . Therefore, World 3 provides a nurturing environment for social and cultural computing. The emergence of new modeling and analysis methods using artificial life and artificial societies testify to the usefulness of Poppers theory. For example, by modeling with artificial societies, many difficult technical issues in social sciences, such as the counterfactual effects in unobserved heterogeneity and the causes of effects in identification problems, can be easily addressed. Cultural Learning and Social Learning Computationally or philosophically, we cannot just thinking, we need real and more actions. From my ACP-based mechanism that promotes modeling with artificial societies, analysis by computational experiments, decision support and making through parallel execution, to the Cultural Reasoning Architecture for socio-cultural analysis, many approaches have been proposed so far. However, we still havent fully and systematically investigated machine learning and data mining techniques for social and cultural computing. For more than a decade, machine learning has transformed statistics. It is now a common practice for statistics departments to hire computer scientists and computer science departments to embrace statistics programs. The success of machine learning in statistical learning suggests that social learning and cultural learning are also promising directions for social computing and cultural modeling. After all, statistics is the most important tool of modeling and analysis in social sciences and cultural studies. With machine learning, we can proceed in a unified fashion for analysis of social and cultural issues, from individual conditions and behaviors, social activities and processes, to organizational states and behaviors, that is, from individual clustering to social stratification, and eventually to various functionalities of social organizations. Social and cultural learning would be even more powerful if it is combined with or embedded in construction of artificial societies, as well as Kathleen Carleys computational organization theory. A few years ago, I had discussed with some our Associate Editors about the choice between social computing and social learning for a special issue in IS , we ended up with a social computing issue in 2007. I am glad to inform you that, to continue our effort, we have already scheduled another special issue on social and cultural learning in 2010. Computational Culture To me, culture is embodied in how people interact with other individuals and with their environment. Therefore, its a way of life formed under specific historical, natural, and social conditions. Culture is not and will not be a science, no matter what we can accomplish with social and cultural computing. However, with the accelerated advancement of IT technology, we may arrive at an age of computational cultures in the near future, where digital natives with computational thinking are ordinary citizens. In many aspects, we have already witnessed new computer-based lifestyles and their impact on our society during the past decade. The establishment of a computational culture depends on the spread of computational thinking thoughout every fabric of our society. I believe, as Wing pointed out, just as the printing press facilitated the spread of the three Rs, computing and computers will greatly facilitate the spread of computational thinking. As we are entering a truly connected world, the speed and scale of this spreading process can be greatly enhanced through new developments and effective applications of social and cultural computing techniques. In many senses, we will be forced to enter the age of computational culture because survivability and sustainability might otherwise be at risk, owing to the unprecedented speed and scale of social changes caused by new scientific and technologic developments. From semantic web to web science to our last special issue on semantic scientific knowledge integration, IS has significantly contributed to promoting new research, development, and application towards this new digital age, and we will continue to be a leading force in this endeavor. B ack to my original question: Is culture computable ? My answer for now is, lets focus on the current tasks and potential consequence of social and cultural computing. Figure 1. Fei-Yue Wang co-organized and chaired the 299 th Xiangshan Scientific Conference on Social Computing at Fragrance Mountain, Beijing, China, in 2007. Figure 2. A discussion at the CAST Seminar on Social Computing at KuanGou, Beijing, China in 2008
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。
标签: Editor
