Confirm that the manuscript has been submitted solely to this journal and is not published, in press, or submitted elsewhere. Confirm that all the research meets the ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements of the study country. Confirm that you have prepared a complete text minus the title page, acknowledgments, and any running headers with author names, to allow blinded review. (A Main document and a Title papge should be prepapred separately. The main document should contain Title, Abstract, Key words, Main body, References. Author names and affiliations and the funding source should not be included in the Main document. The title page includes Title, Author names, Affiliations, Author contact information, and Funding source. Tables and figures can be submitted separately from the main document. ) Confirm the corresponding author has filled in the ORCID number in the user information as all published papers are required to provide ORCID number since the first issue of 2015.
201 4 IEEE Global High Tech Congress on Electronics (GHTCE 201 4 ) November 17-19, 201 4 Shenzhen Convention Exhibition Center, Shenzhen, China 201 4 IEEE Global High Tech Congress on Electronics (GHTCE 201 4 ) will be held at the Shenzhen Convention Exhibition Center on November 17-19, 201 4 , in Shenzhen, China. In conjunction with the 1 6 th China Hi-Tech Fair (the largest technology show in China with typically over 500,000 attendees), the congress serves as a world-class forum for scientists and engineers to share the cutting-edge innovations in electronics, forecast the technology trends and opportunities, and enjoy an immersive experience of China's latest technology advances. The congress program will feature paper sessions and workshops, industry summits and forums, demos, tutorials, and technical tours. The theme of GHTCE 2014 is Build Smart City on Cloud , t opics of interest include, but are not limited to: 1. Internet of Things 2. Smart Grid, Power Systems and Renewable Energy 3. Mobile Internet and Social Computing 4. Cloud Computing and Consumer Services 5. ICT and Electronics for Healthcare 6. Big Data, Analytics and Optimization 7. Human-Device Interaction 8. Entertainment Services 9. Image Video Processing 10. A/V Systems 11. RF Wireless 12. Network Technology Energy Management 13. Automotive Entertainment, Safety Information 14. Enabling Technology Welcome your paper submission and attending! For more information, please visit http://www.ieee-ghtce.org
How to handle a manuscript submitted simultaneously to two or more journals? A reviewer asked a question in the Researchgate: As a reviewer of a journal, what can/should you do when the author(s) submitted their manuscript simultaneously to two or more journals? Yesterday, I comprehensively reviewed a manuscript for a journal. The review took more than 10 hours of my time and I tried to do my best with more than 43 comments. Unfortunately, today I checked the authors' names and noticed that the manuscript has been recently published (with many faults) in another journal. I am EXTREMELY UPSET that these authors submitted their manuscript simultaneously to (at least) two journals. What did/would you do if you were in my shoes? Those answered the questions include reviewers and editors (like me). Here, I just selected several representative answers to this questions. QIU Dunlian, Chinese Academy of Sciences In our journal (Journal of Mountain Science), we'll check the newly submitted papers for duplication and for plagiarism (including plagiarizing the authors' own papers) . So if one paper has been published,the crosschecking system will report that and then we'll reject the paper. However, if the authors submit their papers to several different journals at the same time, then the crosschecking system can't find it. We have once met one similar case. One reviewer reported to us that he found the authors sent the same paper to two different journals (including the Journal of Mountain Science) when both of the two journals invited him to review. After receiving this letter, I immediately wrote to the authors and asked them to make an explanation about this and decide which journal they would withdraw from. In fact when meeting such a situation, if the paper is in high quality, maybe the journal editor will ask the authors to withdraw from another journal, but if the journal is just so so, the editor will immediately reject the paper. Michael Tordoff · Monell Chemical Senses Center What did/would you do if you were in my shoes? I agree that the editors of both journals should know of the authors perfidy. However, I would like to address something else you wrote. I was struck by your comment that you spent 10 hours and provided more than 43 comments in your review. I don't think this is useful for anyone. If the paper has so many substantial problems it requires 43 comments then it is beyond redemption, and the appropriate review would have been to reject the paper listing the main 2 - 5 problems with a final comment like in addition to this there are many minor errors that need attention. If the bulk of these 43 errors were trivial, such as language usage problems, then a simple this paper could benefit from editing by a native English speaker would save you from pointing each one out. Remember, you were asked to review because the editor needs your scientific expertise. It is not your job to rewrite the paper, just to assess its strengths and weaknesses. So, to answer your what would you do question, next time I suggest you focus your review on the serious problems, thus saving your time and effort. Linda Mcphee · Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam I would tell the journal immediately and also realise that it's not the journal's fault. I am sorry to hear that your time and helpfulness and professional expertise have been wasted by this person. Assuming that, like our referees, you did this on a voluntary basis, I'm not sure there's much you *can* do. You could tell the journal in which it did appear, I suppose. If authors are likely to act this way, I'd want to know -- because our board would have possibly wanted to refuse new submissions from them -- we valued our referees very highly, and hated wasting people's time (though more often this was a result of authors not following through with revisions, rather than the outright cheating you describe). I don't know of any database for academic scammers :-( Of course, *if* the journal did offer a fee to you, you have clearly earned it. I mean, it's not your fault the paper shouldn't have been sent to you in the first place. Hassan Amini · Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences Dear Mustapha, You may ask your new question separately from this discussion. However, I will provide a quick response. What I write here is from the link that Mohammed proposed. The ELSEVIER's view: Q: How should an editor or Elsevier handle duplicate publication in other languages? Should both journals publish a notice about dual publication? A: If both journals are aimed at the same community of researchers and users, it should be considered duplicate publication and treated as such. However there are instances where an article might be published in local language in a local publication, which might then be considered for re-publication in an international journal. This of course can only happen with agreement between the two journals, and with a notice re the prior local publication, and if the editor-in-chief believes the article is significant and will reach a new or different community of readers. Anna Phillips · University of Birmingham Report it to the Editor or your handling/associate editor immediately. As one of these, I would want to know and would then take it out of the Reviewer's hands and deal with it. Linda Mcphee · Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam Interesting thread. I am completely amazed that people think they can make multiple submissions and pick one. This suggests people are not reading the information for authors of the journals, which an author *always* should read and follow. It's pure wishful thinking, and it could very well limit your future options as an academic author if a journal finds you doing this (which they would, because you'd have to formally withdraw the paper -- and those situations are rare enough to stand out). Further, it makes very good sense to look at your material and your target journal and tell the story in the way that will be most meaningful for that journal... you are much more likely to get a good hearing that way then you will be wasting everyone's time. The last research I saw on this showed that 60% of papers turned down were turned done because they were unsuitable for the journal. From years of personal experience with journals I know that authors think this means the topic, but it doesn't. It means the way the topic was treated. The errors that now appear in so many more papers than in the past are, I believe, a direct result of publishers' decisions to outsource proofreading, and then to reward it with hobby-level wages. This has produced such poor results that many journals now just rely on the authors to proofread, and authors are not trained to proofread (it really is a specialised skill) and worse, they are more likely to miss mistakes because reading their own stuff, so they know what it should say (but that's really another thread). Subrata Chakraborty · Dibrugarh University Sad to hear all this. In fact in such situations the paper and authors should be banned for a specific period from further publishing in any journal. There should be web site to display such cases for every one to check. Linas Balciauskas · Nature Research Centre as the Editor, I would like to know about such case ASAP. My advice: you stop review, and inform Editor/Managing editor/whoever is your contact in the journal about the duplicate. If review is paid - take your money. As the Editor, I would write a letter to another journal, and suggest both papers are out, and the author banned. It is unethical, because all journals have text not published, not being considered, not submitted... bla bla bla. There is no excuse for such behaviour. Robert Brennan · Harvard University Hi Everyone, it sounds like there are some exceptions to the not under review anywhere policies I am familiar with, but increasingly, we are required to state in the cover letter or in a statement on the manuscript that the work is not previously published, not under consideration, etc. However, there is something to be said for the fact that editors rarely accept manuscripts without revisions, usually major ones. Given the few comments that suggest some authors submit to multiple journals and then chose the best or the fastest, the revisions thing gives authors wiggle room. They can merely choose not to resubmit their manuscript to the journal or journals that are low ranking. In one journal I review for I have had close to 20 manuscripts sent back for major revisions that have not come back resubmitted. On the other hand, I have only had one article of my own completely accepted without so much as a suggestion, but several others, I can't recall, accepted with some suggestions, so in any of those cases, it would be very awkward to withdraw a manuscript and publish somewhere else, not that it ever crossed my mind to submit to multiple journals! Muhammad Ayub · Ayub Medical College It is unethical to submit an article to more than one journal simultaneously. It must be clearly declared in the 'Undertaking/Copyright Forwarding' that the article has not been/will not be submitted to any other journal before the first journal decides fate of the article whether accepted or rejected. If an article is found submitted to more than one journal, I shall opine that article to be rejected by BOTH journals as a punishment to the author(s), irrespective of the quality of the work! I am sure the authors of really high quality articles never have to submit their work to multiple journals. Fathi M Sherif · University of Tripoli I am sorry to see such comments, you have to write to authors and editorial board, however, it is not ethically in submitting a manuscript to more than one journal at the same time, the authors usually stated that the manuscript was not published even as a part or considered for publication or even not submitted to another journal. This happens only in certain places of the world and with certain type of people. Now a days, usually most of manuscripts do not take too much of time for evaluation (2 and max 4 weeks), not ethic to submit the paper to more than one journal. Jens Allmer · Izmir Institute of Technology Dear Hassan, as a reviewer myself, I try to do a good job and provide good feedback to the authors which takes some time. Unfortunately, the reviews that I usually receive for my submissions are of very low quality probably produced via a skimming over the manuscript and then rejecting the paper on no grounds at all (there have been also very thorough and good reviews, but the majority is not). Generally, something that is hard to contest like: not a large improvement in the field or along those lines are reasons for rejection. Often details that were clearly stated and discussed in the manuscript are falsely understood (deliberately?) to reject submissions. Now, why would someone not do a thorough review? Surely, a time issue. Why would they reject the paper they poorly reviewed? Because in that case, they don't take any liability if the paper later turns out to be bad. Basically, my time is wasted by such reviewers. Therefore, measures have to be taken to improve the situation for example: 1) pay reviewers a decent fee and expect a high quality review. In this case it would not make sense to submit to multiple journals because you would get useful feedback and can improve your work before a subsequent submission. 2) do open review, i. e.: everyone knows who is reviewing your work. That would protect the manuscript submitter from hidden forms of plagiarism or other wrongdoing (who is to stop a reviewer from making a very slow review because they have a very similar manuscript about ready to submit). This would significantly improve the quality of the reviews since you have to be extra polite and anything you write must be to the best of your knowledge and can be contested. In the current setup reviewers time is wasted, but if journal policies do not specifically prohibit multiple submissions (some that I know don't), it is understandable if authors try to prevent the problems pointed out above by multiple concurrent submissions. There is always two sides to anything and I hope that you are able to appreciate the other side a little more now. While reviewers time is wasted by authors, reviewers themselves waste the authors time (see above). The question is which one is worse? I believe the former as it slows down the publication of good ideas. Cancel Save Dear Hassan, as a reviewer myself, I try to do a good job and provide good feedback to the authors which takes some time. Unfortunately, the reviews that I usually receive for my submissions are of very low quality probably produced via a skimming over the manuscript and then rejecting the paper on no grounds at all (there have been also very thorough and good reviews, but the majority is not). Generally, something that is hard to contest like: not a large improvement in the field or along those lines are reasons for rejection. Often details that were clearly stated and discussed in the manuscript are falsely understood (deliberately?) to reject submissions. Now, why would someone not do a thorough review? Surely, a time issue. Why would they reject the paper they poorly reviewed? Because in that case, they don't take any liability if the paper later turns out to be bad. Basically, my time is wasted by such reviewers. Therefore, measures have to be taken to improve the situation for example: 1) pay reviewers a decent fee and expect a high quality review. In this case it would not make sense to submit to multiple journals because you would get useful feedback and can improve your work before a subsequent submission. 2) do open review, i. e.: everyone knows who is reviewing your work. That would protect the manuscript submitter from hidden forms of plagiarism or other wrongdoing (who is to stop a reviewer from making a very slow review because they have a very similar manuscript about ready to submit). This would significantly improve the quality of the reviews since you have to be extra polite and anything you write must be to the best of your knowledge and can be contested. In the current setup reviewers time is wasted, but if journal policies do not specifically prohibit multiple submissions (some that I know don't), it is understandable if authors try to prevent the problems pointed out above by multiple concurrent submissions. There is always two sides to anything and I hope that you are able to appreciate the other side a little more now. While reviewers time is wasted by authors, reviewers themselves waste the authors time (see above). The question is which one is worse? I believe the former as it slows down the publication of good ideas. Attila Marton, Babeş-Bolyai University I didn't have time to read the answers, so I hope I won't repeat what someone else wrote. You should notify the editor of the journal, he should contact the editor of the other journal, and ban the Department of the author in question for 4 years from publishing. At least this is what Wiley does. Chukwuemeka Iyoke, University of Nigeria It is unethical practice to send the same article to more than one journal for review, and if an article that has been published is sent to another journal for a review, it amounts to self plagiarism. As a reviewer, you should have highlighted the major faults in the paper. It saves time spent on peer review. I thin k you should alert the editor of the journal you review for, and have the paper rejected
How long can a new submission have first decision? This is really a difficult question to answer. The manuscript handling procedure is follows: 1. Manuscript submission -- MS ID will be immediately sent to to the corresponding authors by the machine after the submission; 2.Anti-plagiarism checking (within one day)-- MS with high similarity index with previously published papers will be directly rejected; 3. Format and quality checking (one day)-- disqualified manuscript will be rejected within two days; 4. Scientific edtior initial review (4 days)-- MS that hasn't passed initial review will be rejected; those that have passed initial review will be sent out for peer-review; 5. Peer-review (21 days to 2 months)-- We suggest the peer-reviewers to finish the review within 21 days but if no suitable peer-reviewers are available, this review process may be longer than one month. 6. First decision--Editors will make recommendation according to the peer-reviewers' comments. There are four recommendations: accept, major revision, minor revision, reject. Manuscript that needs major revision will be sent to the reviewers for further checking after the authors make revision. In order to hasten the manuscript handling process, we suggest the authors to follow the following steps: 1. Read carefully the Guide to Authors of the JMS and prepare your manuscripts by strictly following the guidelines; 2. Make clear and pleasing figures; 3. Language is sound; 4. Fill in all the authors' information when submitting the manuscript to keep the consistency of the author numbers and author sequence between those listed in the title page and those filled in the manuscript sytem. Otherwise, the administrator will unsubmit the manuscript to the authors and then the authors have to submit it once again.
IEEE Intelligent SystemsEditor: James Hendler University of Maryland Intelligent Readers, All too often these days I find myself writing letters to authors with the bad news that The above-referenced manuscript, which you submitted to IEEE Intelligent Systems, has completed the review process. After carefully examining the manuscript and reviews, the editor in chief has decided that the manuscript isn’t suitable for publication in IEEE Intelligent Systems, and therefore we must reject it. I wish I never had to send such a letter, but currently we’re only able to accept fewer than one in 10 of the papers submitted for regular publication (special-issue acceptance rates vary depending on topic). This means not only am I rejecting weak submissions, but all too often I must reject papers that contain some strong material but aren’t quite up to the standard we need to maintain. Especially in these latter cases, I try hard to explain to the author what’s needed to meet our needs. I realized recently that I was repeating the same advice to multiple authors, so I thought that putting it in this column might be of use to those writing for this magazine (and other technical publications). This advice might also be useful to share with your graduate students or the junior colleagues you mentor—I learned it through a lot of reviews of a lot of rejected papers, and I sure wish someone had shared more of this with me earlier in my career! Cite the right literature First and foremost, many papers simply don’t do a good job of situating the work in the greater research milieu. This can be something as egregious as having no references to other work at all or as subtle as missing a key reference. In the former case, authors have replied to my rejections complaining that, as one author put it, “comparison with existing literature also wouldn’t help much because the approach of this model is very different from those discussed in the literature.” Even if this is true of a piece of novel work, the author still has the responsibility to help the reader understand why. As I responded to this author (text changed slightly to provide anonymity), How would our readers who aren’t experts in the field know this? For example, suppose one of them has heard a talk by a researcher about his related model and wants to know what’s different between that work and yours. You know it’s different, but on the surface, there’s much that a reader could confuse. … So, you can help readers understand how your work compares and convince them that you’re aware of the state of the art, so that they know you’re not just reinventing something out there (it’s your responsibility as author, nottheirs as reader, to place the work in thiscontext). The more common case, however, especiallyin these days when AI has splintered into subareas with separate publications, isthat the author is simply unaware of work being done elsewhere in the field, oftenusing a different term for the algorithm or approach. “How,” the poor author mightask, “am I possibly to know all the work going on in all these other parts of thefield?” And that’s a fair question—generally, there’s no way that someone can trackall the work in the field these days. However, authors do have the responsibilityto find literature relevant to their work. In particular, if another area is likely to haveappropriate work, then it’s mandatory that the author makes the effort to explore thatliterature. An author claiming his approach is “user centric” can’t ignore the cognitiveliterature. An author who claims that a biological model of the brain inspired her workisn’t free to ignore the literature in neural and neural network modeling. It’s okay tomiss some slightly related work in an obscure corner of the field, but it’s unforgivable (andgrounds for rejection) to reinvent the wheel just because you didn’t find a relevant hit for“round rolling rubber” in Google Scholar. I’m sure some of you are now confused.How can I say that our main problem is in citations, when our instructions to the author(see www.computer.org/intelligent/author. htm) ask you to limit your references toabout 10 per paper or sidebar? The answer is that the key is to cite the right work, nottake a shotgun approach. One common mistake, for example, is to cite a lot of yourown papers. One or two self-citations can be appropriate—more than that, and you’reprobably citing too many. In addition, if anumber of citations are to literature in a differentarea, then a good thing to consider is a sidebar—you can put in a couple of paragraphsabout the other work with a few citations, and it becomes a useful addition toyour paper. Again, the key is to ensure the citations put your work in appropriate context,not that you’ve mentioned every possible source. Do the right evaluation A close contender for the most commoncause of rejection, narrowly trailing literature review flaws, is lack of evaluation. Thereare many different ways to evaluate a piece of research and no one-size-fits-all solutionto ensuring that the work is sound. Some cases require theoretical or mathematical analysis,others require an experimental result or a user study, and sometimes all that’s neededmight be just a strong demonstration. Deciding which approach to use, and the key togetting your paper accepted, is simple— justify your claims.In deciding how to evaluate your research for the paper, ensure that the paper showsyou can achieve the justification you’ve asserted for the research. Publishing anempirical graph showing how fast your system works or delivering a proof that themathematics is correct isn’t only sometimes unnecessary but also is often insufficient. Itall depends on what you’re claiming your new approach can achieve. If you’re claimingthat your approach does something new, then all you need is a good strong demonstrationthat your approach can do it. If you claim your approach is superior to previousapproaches, then your evaluation must prove this.Designing an appropriate evaluation ispart of the art of good science and isn’t always easy—but it’s always needed. Theheuristic of tailoring your evaluation to your claims (or tailoring your claim to yourevaluation design), however, is usually a good one. Let’s take a somewhat artificialcase—suppose an author claimed a major breakthrough in knowledge representation. How in the world might you evaluate sucha thing? While a true validation of this claimwould be arbitrarily hard, a good model for this author might be to find some corpus ofsentences or other statements about the world (and many are available) and workout how the model represents them. If the author could state in the paper thatTo prove my contention, from the Such-and- Such corpus, we randomly chose 100 sentencesand analyzed them according to themodel. In 96 cases the mapping was trivial(see www.xxx.edu for details). The remainingfour cases needed a more complex use of themodel. For example, sentence 87 read “’Twasbrillig, and the slithy toves / Did gyre and gimble in the wabe,” which clearly isn’t astandard knowledge statement. However, elsewhere in the book Through the LookingGlass, these terms are interpreted as follows: . Making these substitutions, weget the new sentence “It was four o’clock in the afternoon, and the lithe and slimy badger/lizard/corkscrew-like animals were rotating and making holes in the grass plot arounda sundial,” which we can easily put into this model.Such evidence would give the readermuch more confidence that the model could do what the author claims. Even ifthe representation couldn’t handle every case, it would still clearly have a lot of coverage. Of course, a more complete evaluation of the corpus coverage, a computationalmechanism for mapping from the sentences to the representation, or a comparisonto other representational models applied to the same statements would beeven stronger evidence. However, the key is that the evaluation fits the claim, andthat’s what is needed. So, if you want to claim that your approachis the first to do something, then you need to show it can indeed do that thing (and rememberto do a thorough literature search). If you want to claim your approach solves someindustrial problem better than previous approaches, then you need to do a comparisonin that problem space. If you claim to have a good user interface, then you needeither a user study or a really solid justification from the cognitive literature. If youclaim completeness, soundness, efficiency, or some other mathematical property, then aproof is a necessity. An easy way to tell if you’ve accomplishedthis is to ensure you describe both your main claim and its validation in thepaper’s abstract. If your abstract says something likeWe have a new model of planning that outperforms all others. We validate this by producinggraphs of its performance on a few random problems and don’t compare it withanything else.then, I suspect, you have a problem. If, on the other hand, the second sentence read “We validate this with a proof that it’s in alower complexity class than any previously known algorithm,” then this paper is on itsway to a good review. Additional advice Of course, we reject papers for many other reasons. Sometimes the work is quite strong but overly technical for a generalpublication such as this magazine. Other times the work is directly in the scope ofanother IEEE publication and only minimally AI related, in which case we’re probablynot the right place to submit that paper. Sometimes the nature of your result makesyour paper more appropriate for a specialized journal where the readers can appreciatethe difficulty in getting the slight performance result you’ve worked so hardfor. Some time spent up front making sure we’re the right place to submit is wellworth it and might spare you from getting that rejection letter. Although this letter has focused on thenegative, the bright side is that IEEE Intelligent Systems is a high-impact, excitingplace to publish, as you can see by the articles in this and every issue. We work hardto treat every submission fairly, and we often end up working with authors to helpthem get their exciting results above our publication threshold. We know how hardyou work on your papers, and we put great effort into seeing that the best of them endup in our magazine. I hope the guidelines in this letter will help you get the greatwork you’re doing into a form we can publish— it’s what we’re here for! Yours, James Hendler
Dear Authors: There is Only a week left for Abstract Submission to The Third International Photonics and OptoElectronics Meetings (POEM 2010) . Please submit your abstract before May 15, 2010 ! Please login and submit your abstract at: http://poem.wnlo.cn/submission/guide.asp Don't miss! Latest Updates: Confirmed Plenary Speakers ( in alphabetical order ): BIGOT Jean-Yves, CNRS, IPCMS (France) Title: Ultrafast magnetism: observing the coupling between the orbital and spin angular moments in magnets Shu Chien, Univ. of California, San Diego (USA) Title: Role of Extracellular Forces in Modulating Intracellular Rheology and Function of Endothelial Cells Dennis Matthews , University of California, Davis (USA) Title: BiophotonicsResearch,IndustryandOpportuni-tiesWorldwide Alan Willner , University of Southern California (USA) Guozhen Yang , Institute of Physics, The Chinese Academy of Sciences ( China) Xiang Zhang, University of California, Berkeley ( USA) Dongyuan Zhao , Fudan University (China) POEM 2010 includes: 7 Plenary presentatons 6 Co-conferences Laser Technology and Appliacitions (LTA) , Nano-enabled Energy Technologies and Materials (NETM), Optoelectronic Devices and Integration (OEDI), Optoelectronic Sensing And Imaging (OSI), Solar Cells, Solid State Lighting and Information Display Technologies (SSID) and Tera-Hertz Science and Technology (THST) 1international conference in conjunction with The 9 th International Conference on Photonics and Imaging in Biology and Medicine (PIBM 2010) www.pibm.cn 1 one of the largest international optoelectronic exposition in China in conjunction with The 7 th Optics Valley of China International Optoelectronic Exposition and Forum ( OVC EXPO ) 1 Workshop: Workshop on Plasmonics Technology and Applications ( http://poem.wnlo.cn/page.asp?id=110 ) For more detailed information, please link to the conference website: http://poem.wnlo.cn or http://www.wnlo.cn/poem Looking forward to meeting you at Wuhan andWuhan Optics Vally of China!
11月21日，投到physical Chemistry Chemical Physics的论文被告之接收了。高兴之余，却不禁感叹：it is really a long story. 这篇稿子是08年投adv materials 和 JPCC的两个稿子的姊妹篇。在这两个稿子接收后，就开始整理。最早选择的投稿方向是ACS的杂志，当然JACS是首当其冲的。不过，在审稿的过程中，编辑提到了一个问题，那就是这个文章与adv 和 jpcc的文章有什么不同？因为在文章中我们已经强调以前的两个文章是layered sturucture，新的工作是microporous tunnel structure，所以我们自己感觉虽然应用上类似，但是在材料结构，特别是最后的功能上还是有不同之处。可能是我们的语言功底不够，最后从jacs降级到CM的时候，编辑也是提到了同样的问题。 无奈，只好选择另一个层次的杂志。考虑到材料是用来做吸附的，老板选择投Langmuir。审稿一个月后，审稿意见让老板和我瞠目结舌。因为编辑发回了5个审稿人的意见。老板也说，哎，这是他收到最多的审稿意见。还好，没有人提出拒稿的意见。但是，意见实在是太多，我用一个星期的时间补数据，做response list，整个list长达16页，然后resubmit。一个月后，收到了让人心碎的消息：拒稿。理由是没有按照reviewer的意见改。当时我除了笑，就是笑。考虑到Langmuir曾经在2008年对我的另一篇文章做过同样的thing，也只能笑了。 下一个选择是哪个杂志呢？我的意见是Nanotechnology，老板的意见是PCCP。他说后者名声更好，而且IF更高（他不大相信新杂志，不过好玩的是Nanotechnology最近邀请我们写一个review）。我对PCCP没有研究，既然老板说投，只好照办。我专门到PCCP的主页上看了看这个杂志，发现他们最吸引人的地方在他们的快捷和不断攀升的IF。一看到快，我心里就乐开了花，哈哈，越快越好。投稿之后，真是快，4周后，审稿意见就回来了。一个minor revision，一个拒稿。但是编辑说他对这个文章很感兴趣，建议我修改。既然好心的编辑给了机会，咱就改吧。改好后，老板迅速resubmit。可是这一投，竟然让我等了6个月。半年内，丝毫消息都没有。三个月的时候，我问老板，他们不是说快吗？老板说，我发信问问。编辑回答的很客气，正在审稿，只好等。又等了三个月，终于等到了编辑的来信。我一看，头又大了。这次竟然送了4个审稿人。其中两个是第一次的会送，然后又送了两个新的。三个minor revision，一个拒稿。编辑说，你按照那三个人的意见改。既然编辑的意思很明确，我心里也就有底了。况且这三为老师的意见都很mild，改起来没有难度。花费了一周的时间，修改完毕。第二次resubmit。终于，在三周后，收到了接收函。 算起来，这个号称最快的杂志，从我投稿到接收，一共花了8个月的时间。老板说，it is a good news! 我说：it is really a long story.
标签: submission
