| 本文由查尔斯沃思英国编辑团队中担任权威期刊主编的成员撰写，中国办公室翻译 | 查尔斯沃思原创文章，未经授权的商业转载都是侵权行为 假如你已向一家国际期刊投稿了，并在其在线提交系统中查阅了你的作者区域，确定了你的论文正处于“awaiting reviewer scores”状态。 大多数在线系统允许作者查阅投稿状态：你最好能够定期登录，确保你的论文正在朝同行评审流程推进。在你的论文审阅流程不断推进时，你会看到不同的消息提示，如“awaiting editorial approval”、“awaiting reviewer scores”、“awaiting editorial board comments”和“decisionpending”。最终，编辑将作出决定，你将收到审稿人对你论文的意见。 你应该在整个过程中静静等待，什么都不做吗？ 答案是否定的。在查尔斯沃思的论文写作和发表研讨会上，我们经常被问到的问题之一就是“我在三个月前向期刊投稿了一篇论文，自那之后再没有收到进一步的消息。系统一直显示‘awaiting reviewer scores’，我应该怎么办呢？” 出版速度对作者来说非常重要，原因显而易见： 如果你在超过合理的等待时间后仍没有收到同行评审的消息，你必须写信给编辑。 什么是 “合理的等待时间”？ 出版业从投稿到在线出版的平均时间是三个月。如果一个月过去了，你的论文在投稿系统中状态未有进展，我们建议你给期刊编辑写信询问。 出版商也很重视出版速度，许多出版商会使用解析法记录，有时候甚至是编辑来进行追踪，所以你不是此过程中的唯一一个既得利益方。 作者，尤其是年轻的研究人员，经常担心直接写信给期刊编辑。不需要担心：这是你的论文、你的研究、你的事业、你的未来。你可以联系查尔斯沃思，我们可以为你提供此类电子邮件的简短模板。 这里有一些小建议： ·写信给期刊编辑时要直接但礼貌。需要解决的问题是什么？ ·确保你的邮件内容是积极的：你在这个问题上提出了什么解决方案？ 让我们举一个例子 假如你的研究论文进度停在了“awaiting reviewer comments”的状态，两个月过去了，你仍未收到来自期刊的任何消息。你可以写一封信询问，如下： ‘Dear Editor: I am writing on behalf of my co-authors to enquire about the status of our paper submitted on x date, entitled y’. We see that this article is ‘awaiting reviewer comments’ and more than two months have passed: we have therefore taken the opportunity to suggest the names of some additional colleagues who would be suitable peer-reviewer s’ . 不要忘记在邮件底部附上两个或三个其他审稿人的姓名和电子邮件地址。 最好还是直接写信给期刊编辑与之交流。正如我们之前所讨论的，这些同事通常也是繁忙的学术研究人员、需要管理他们的小组、监督学生、进行教学以及管理期刊。他们会忘记论文这回事，同时也没有催促审稿人。作为作者，你必须采取主动行动：编辑会欣赏并理解这一点！但请不要穷追不舍。不要咄咄逼人。你需要始终保持礼貌，具有建设性，提供解决方案，节省编辑时间。 如果你对同行评审方面心存疑问 ▼欢迎加入我们的微信群▼ 本周，我们将在国际同行评审周期间邀请国际知名期刊主编在微信群内一同探讨这方面的问题，我们也将发表一系列文章，包括如何以作者身份管理这个流程，如何保证你的论文不被首选的目标期刊退稿，并将论文被接受的几率提升至最高水平。 ——END—— 论文语言润色 | 学术翻译 | 其他发表支持服务 | 英国编辑团队介绍
Today I read a piece of useful information about manuscript revision,editing, and peer-review response, and thus share it here. --------------------------------------- Dealing with Rejection, Bad Peer Reviews and Negative Feedback In virtually all worthwhile endeavours there is significant risk. Sharing your scholarly writing is no exception, and this is the case whether you are submitting it to a journal or press for publication or passing it along to instructors or mentors for commentary and grading. It is important to remember that pleasing every reader every time is impossible, and to recognise that dealing with negative feedback is an aspect of the larger process that will ultimately lead to success. The emotional response generated by negative feedback can be quite overwhelming, especially when a scholar is still learning how to make positive use of critical commentary. For most authors, some time is necessary to absorb the shock regarding what they had, after all, considered excellent work. The point is not to extend this time by wallowing unhelpfully in that initial emotional response, so it can be helpful to establish a set period in which to pass through disappointment, frustration and acceptance before moving forward – a few hours, a day perhaps or maybe a few days, but definitely no longer. Remember how important doing and sharing your research seemed to you before the bad news came and try to find that perspective again, but with a greater understanding of just how challenging the admirable goals you have set for yourself really are. You should then be ready for action – the action required to improve your work and achieve the success you desire. You can start by rereading any criticism you received, ensuring that you do so very carefully alongside your writing. Your eyes and mind must be alert to exactly what the problems identified are, why they are problematic in the context of your research and other work in the field, and how your text can be changed to resolve the problems. Trying to imagine the perspective of your critic(s) can be immensely useful because it will help you read their feedback critically and put it to constructive use in effective revisions. It will also widen your outlook to accommodate readers and views that you had not anticipated, and this is always a positive development. Having colleagues and mentors read your work and the criticism you received can also be helpful because knowledgeable readers are often able to see clearly what the author cannot. Ideally, you will come away from an assessment of your work and the criticism it inspired with a positive plan for revision that acknowledges what you can as well as what you cannot change. The revisions may require a significant amount of work on their own, but it is also essential to explain them to your critic(s), whether you need to write a letter to a journal editor describing your intentions or set up a meeting with your mentor to discuss them. When your work has met with dissatisfaction or rejection without the provision of specific comments identifying the problems detected by your critic(s), you will have a good deal less to go on, but here, too, constructive action can be effective. You could, for example, compare the content, structure, formatting and writing style of your text to papers published by the relevant journal or to theses written by other students in your department and then make revisions to emulate the successful documents before resubmitting your work. You could also engage the services of a professional academic or scientific proofreader to check and correct any errors in your language and formatting and give your paper a scholarly shine.
研究中经常会用到将加速度数据积分成速度和位移，对前几年编写的程序重新进行了改写。为了测试和验证peer2acc函数、dirFolder函数和acc2vd函数，编写了一个简单的测试程序 acc2vd函数主要信息如下： %% Main information % Developed by Decai@hfut 2014/11/14 % Calculate velocity displacement from acceleration through integration %% Description of input output variables % ---input variables % acc: acceleration data % dt: time step % ---output variables % vel: velocity data % dis: displacement data %% Format to use % vel=acc2vd(acc,dt) % or =acc2vd(acc,dt) 函数附件： acc2vd.p 测试程序如下： clear all clc direc='test'; filenames=dirFolder(direc); =peer2acc(direc,filenames{1}); =acc2vd(acc,dt); t=dt:dt:N*dt; subplot(311) plot(t,acc); ylabel('acceleration'); subplot(312) plot(t,vel); ylabel('velocity'); subplot(313) plot(t,dis); xlabel('t') ylabel('displacement'); 运行结果：
为了能够批量处理某一文件夹下的所有相同格式的文件，采用Matlab编写了读取所有文件的文件名函数。主要是为了批处理强震记录使用，由于使用最多的是PEER的AT2格式文件，如果不指定文件扩展名的话，默认读取指定文件夹下的所有AT2格式的文件名，函数返回值为一个cell格式的变量。 函数的主要信息如下： %% Main information % Developed by Decai@hfut 2014/11/14 % read file names of the folder with the specified extension % default extension: AT2 %% Description of input output variables % input variables % direc: folder name % output variables % filenames: file names of the folder with the specified extension (format: cell array) %% Format to use % filenames=dirFolder(direc) % default: *.AT2 file names ca be recognized % or filenames=dirFolder(direc,'xls') % or filenames=dirFolder(direc,'dat') %any extension can be used %% Example % direc='D:\records\all'; % ext='txt'; % filenames = dirFolder(direc,ext); % if only recognize *.AT2 file names % direc='D:\records\all'; % filenames = dirFolder(direc); 函数附件： dirFolder.p
PEER地震动记录数据库是目前应用最为广泛的数据库，为了便于利用其中的强震记录，对几年前采用Matlab编写的读取加速度数据函数进行了改写，使用了向量化的编写规则，减少了原有的循环处理，比原来的程序简化了很多。 函数输入记录所在文件夹名和记录文件名，输出一列形式的加速度数据、时间步长和数据点数，输出的加速度数据单位为g。例如：test.AT2强震记录文件存放在文件夹d:\records下，则主程序中采用acc=peer2acc('d:\records','test.AT2')或 =peer2acc(' d:\ records','test.AT2')或 =peer2acc(' d:\ records','test.AT2')，可以得到加速度数据、时间步长和数据点数。 函数说明如下： %% Main information % Developed by Decai@hfut 2014/11/13 % read acceleration data from PEER NGA database -- output acceleration % data in one column %% Description of input output variables % input variables % direc: directory of the input file % filename: input file name % output variables % acc: accelaration history data(Unit: g) % dt: time step % N: the points of acc. history %% Format to use % acc=peer2acc(direc,filename) % or =peer2acc(direc,filename) % or =peer2acc(direc,filename) %% 输入输出变量含义 %输入变量 % direc: 强震记录所在的文件夹名 % filename: 记录文件名 % 输出变量 % acc: 加速度时程数据(单位：g) % dt: 时间步长 % N: 数据点数 函数附件： peer2acc.p
Strong Motion DataBase Earthquake strong motion records/time histories are useful for engineering applications where dynamic analysis is considered. With the introduction of performance-based design specifications in recent seismic codes and regulations, engineers need strong motion records more frequently. This guide: provides information on obtaining copies of strong motion records assists in locating selected data about an earthquake including date, location, time, site characteristics Obtaining Strong Motion Records: Accelerograms are available from the organizations, systems, and sites listed below. In some cases, records can be obtained directly via online systems, as well as in a variety of formats, including CD-ROM or hard copy. United States Sources International Sources United States Sources California Department of Conservation California Geological Survey (CGS) – Strong Motion Instrumentation Program http://www.consrv.ca.gov/ Consortium of Organizations for Strong Motion Observation Systems (COSMOS) Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) – University of California, Berkeley http://db.cosmos-eq.org/ Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University Strong Motion Database System http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/ National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) Earthquake Strong Motion Database http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/ Significant Earthquake Database http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/ The Guerrero Accelerograph Network University of Nevada http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ PEER Strong Motion Database Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center(PEER) – University of California, Berkeley http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat/ Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) University of Southern California http://www.data.scec.org/ Strong Motion Group University of Southern California http://www.usc.edu/ U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Strong Motion Program (NSMP) http://nsmp.wr.usgs.gov/ Top International Sources Europe European Strong Motion Database – Imperial College, London http://www.isesd.hi.is/ Italy Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra – Friuli Strong Motion Network Universita degli Studi di Trieste http://www.dst.units.it/ Japan Earthquake and Volcanic Disaster Prevention Laboratory – Kyoshin Net (K-Net) National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention www.k-net.bosai.go.jp Mexico Instituto de Ingeniería de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (IIUNAM) http://www.iingen.unam.mx/ New Zealand Geological and Nuclear Sciences (GNS) http://www.gns.cri.nz/ Switzerland Swiss National Strong Motion Network – Swiss Seismological Service http://seispc2.ethz.ch/ 转引： http://mceer.buffalo.edu/infoservice/reference_services/strongMotionGuide.asp#1
昨天我整了篇题为 “ JBC vs PLoS ONE: 鹿死谁手 ? ”的博文，引起了不少网友，尤其是 牛登科先生的关注和热议， 登科先生还专门写了一篇博文“ 编委会自己审稿，算不算peer review ”，由于我对登科先生的博文的不少观点有自己不同的看法，所以也专门写此博文以商榷，也非常欢迎感兴趣的网友发表自己的观点和看法。 登科先生（称其牛先生似乎确有歧义 ）的一个重要观点是：“ Plos one和BBRC的审稿规则是一样的。都是主编、编委自己决定一部分自己熟悉的稿件，可以直接接受，不熟悉的再外审“。对于是否真的“Plos one和BBRC的审稿规则是一样的”，让我们先用事实说话。 根据PLoS One官方网站关于“ Editorial and Peer-Review Process ”介绍，我们可以知道：正如登科先生提到的，95.8%的接受稿件经过了外审（原文为： Currently, of the articles that are ultimately accepted for publication, 95.8% were sent for review by external experts.）那么剩下的4.2%是怎么回事呢，这部份没有经过外审就接受的稿件是：“Around 4.2%* of articles are peer reviewed by the Academic Editors themselves (often in consultation with other members of the Editorial Board)（博主注：这个Editorial Board有上千人的规模） when they are sufficiently expert in the field to determine whether the paper meets the PLoS ONE criteria .”也就是说，PLoS One有极少数稿件（5%的接受稿件），由熟悉稿件内容的小同行—学术编辑来亲自审稿并常常征询Editorial Board其他同行的意见，这种情况和其他一般国际期刊没有什么区别，因为别的期刊也会有少量稿件由于正好是主编／副主编或学术编辑熟悉该研究领域，就直接自己审稿并拍板决定是否接受。这也符合国际期刊的惯例。 更重要的是，大多数国际期刊都是只邀请两位审稿人审稿（当然也有极个别的有多达８位 reviewer 的期刊），而 PLoS One ，则 “On average, ALL accepted articles have been reviewed by 2.9* experts (one Academic Editor and 1.9* external Peer Reviewers).” ，也就是说，平均而言，所有的接受稿件要被３位专家（一位学术编辑 +2 位外部审稿人）审稿，比一般期刊还要严格！。 下面我们再来看看BBRC是如何审稿的，根据BBRC 官方网站关于” Peer Review Policy ”的介绍，原文为：“BBRC is a rapid communications journal. As such, the decision to publish an article rests entirely with the handling Editor. Manuscripts are assigned to members of the Editorial Board based on expertise. This Editor may accept the manuscript as it is, send it to a colleague for review, or reject it. Requests for revisions are rare. Should the Editor request revisions, the manuscript will be treated as a new submission.” 简单的说，绝大多数稿件，直接就由members of the Editorial Board来直接审稿并拍板决定是否接受，尽管文中说也许会送外审，但是通过丁香园众多网友的投稿经验来看，送外审的几率非常之低，就算送外审的比例很高，不管哪种情况，关键是：１）“This Editor may accept the manuscript as it is＂；２）Requests for revisions are rare，也就是说：无需任何修改，直接接受发表。所以文章的质量难以保证，因为几乎任何投稿论文都会有或多或少的问题和毛病，同行评审则可将（至少是可能的）问题和毛病最大程度上减少（当然不大可能完全解决掉）。 我们知道，国际期刊的同行评审(Peer Review)模式已经创立有上百年的历史了，发展至今，也确实存在不少问题，其存废之争多年来一直在进行，为何现在全球绝大多数期刊都还采用这一方式？就是目前还没有一套更好的系统还取代它。 综上所述，事实说明： PLoS One和BBRC的审稿规则是截然不同的 。 另外，登科先生还在其博文中提到：“ BBRC和PLoS ONE的内部审稿模式，是将来很多中低档期刊的发展方向。”。据我了解，BBRC是国际期刊中唯一采用（几乎是完全采用）这种内部审稿模式的（如有网友知道别的期刊，请指出，让我也长长见识），别的期刊都不这么玩，所以， 我不认为内部审稿模式是“将来很多中低档期刊的发展方向” 。 另外 PLoS One 和 BBRC 这两种期刊还是都是自己显著特点的，对于 PLoS One 而言，就是正如 其网站上所言 ： “Publish all papers that are judged to be technically sound. Judgments about the importance of any particular paper are then made after publication by the readership (who are the most qualified to determine what is of interest to them).” 。也就是说正如牛先生所指出的， PLoS One 不管你文章的重要性，只要你能技术上自圆其说即可，文章的重要性交给发表后的读者来评判。这种评判稿件的标准和原则在全球科技期刊中开了先河（不知现在有无第二家？！）。 PLoS One 这一准则也使得该刊发表了一些一般期刊不愿发表或不屑发表的有些另类的文章，比较典型的例子有：我国学者去年首次获得搞笑诺贝尔（ Ig Nobel Prize ）的论文即发表在 PLoS One 上，标题为： “Fellatio by Fruit Bats Prolongs Copulation Time” （果蝠 口/交 延长交配时间） “ （详见我的丁香园博文： 特大号外：来自中国大陆的学者终获诺贝尔奖！！ ） 而 BBRC 的显著特点就一个字： “ 快 ” ，到底能有多快呢，其网站上说 “Authors of manuscripts can expect an accept or reject decision normally within 2 weeks of receipt.” 即：一般稿件，投稿后 2 个周内决定是否接受，当然也有更长时间的，最短的：丁香园上有网友报料其投稿从投到接受，只用了几个小时， BBRC 被视为是全球 SCI 期刊中决定投稿是否接受最快的期刊。当然，由于 BBRC 处理稿件速度快，接受后又不用修改，所以对语言要求很高（接受后就没有机会改了），语言不过关，就会直接退回，修改后如果再投，就算新的投稿了。由于 BBRC 快字当头，确实是急等论文毕业的研究生和急需论文晋升的科研人员的福音，由于其影响因子不算高（ 2-3 分），对文章的质量要求不太高（要求最多４个图，创新性要求也不高，当然高了的稿件也不会投 BBRC ） , 所以也可视为广大搞生命科学的研究生们练手园地。 另外感谢科学网编辑将我和牛先生的博文一并推荐到博客首页，我很欣赏编辑鼓励将两种不同观点的博文进行讨论的方式，这种 “ 百家争鸣 ” 的风格才更能体现 “ 科学 ” 网的科学性，但愿以后科学网能更少一些既不科学也不和谐的博文（比如今天博主 A 对博主 B 公开宣称绝交啦，明天博主 B 对博主 A 也如法炮制）。 最后，和牛登科先生开个玩笑：我的 “ 守业 ” 之名字和 “ 登科 ” 一比，顿然显得胸无大志，小家子气！ （文首图片来自网络，特向作者表示谢意。 王守业写于 2011 年 4 月 19 日，引文地址： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=563591do=blogquickforward=1id=435130 )
同行评审（Peer review，在某些学术领域亦称审查(refereeing)）为一种审查程序，即使一位作者的学术著作或计划让同一领域的其他专家学者来加以评审。在出版单位主要以同行评审的方法来选择与筛选所投送的稿件录取与否，再而资金提供的单位，也是以同行评审的方式来决定研究奖助金是否授予。 信息分析平台 http://www.gopubmed.org/web/gopubmed/2?WEB0l3zit4prco6mIeI1I00h001000j10040001rl Top Terms Publications Peer Review 8,449 Humans 7,712 Peer Review, Research 3,873 United States 3,374 Evaluation Studies as Topic 1,878 Patients 1,602 Peer Review, Health Care 1,155 Physicians 1,121 Hospitals 1,098 Hospitalization 1,039 Delivery of Health Care 1,018 Quality of Health Care 891 Quality Assurance, Health Care 889 Research 886 Data Collection 831 Research Design 816 Biomedical Research 810 Medicine 777 Research Support as Topic 756 Science 750 1 2 3 ... 342 信息分析报告 Peer review.docx
标签: peer
