2020-01-18 今天早上收到 APL 编辑部的来信： Dear Prof. Dr. Zhang, Your manuscript, referenced below, has been reviewed for Applied Physics Letters. Self-powered flexible and transparent smart patch for temperature sensing APL19-AR-09640R Your manuscript will be accepted if you can make few more additional minor changes as indicated in a pdf copy that will be send to you immediately. …… 与众不同的是这句话： 根据附件里 PDF 的标注进行小修， 一般来说都是根据审稿人的意见来修改完善，这个意见一般都是列几条不是 PDF 文件，我下载下来一看，真的是惊呆了，原来是 APL 的责任编辑逐字逐句修改了投稿论文！有文字拼错的、有表述问题的、有标点符号和后缀的 …… 看着这个编辑的批注，联想到近日频频曝光的中国期刊论文和学术论文的问题，真的是感慨万千： 学术规范和学术水平的提升与建设是全方位的，不仅仅是学生、导师和参与评审的同行和编委，还有编辑部的各位和读者也都是 “ 学术产品 ” 出场的质量检测员啊！哪个环节都需要这样严肃认真和较真的态度，都做好了，次品就少了，精品就多了。 想起很多年前的一件旧事：我毙掉了一份送审的博士论文，我想今天这位博士论文的作者和他的导师一定不后悔当初找我评审（附2011年博文），正是因为有我严格把关才有了他们现在不提心吊胆担心论文被人找出来的坦荡人生。 认真做事，严格把关，从我做起！ 论文评审：说 NO 的勇气和代价 2011-9-14 13:42 暑假期间有来自外校的博士论文评审，耽搁了几天，终于沉下心来看的时候，忽然发现是一篇很难评的论文，内容我很熟悉，虽然有一定的创新（研究方法），但是论文确实写得很差，错别字、语句不通、中英混杂、概念不清等，论文也缺乏最后的实验验证和测试分析，看的时候不知不觉就在上面做了很多批注，最后写评审意见的时候，犹豫很久，还是写了 “ 需要修改后再审 ” ，尽管评过不少博士生论文，有本校的也有外校的，这还是我第一次给出这样的评语，写完以后还很犹豫是不是要寄回去还是直接跟他的导师联系，考虑到每个学校都是匿名评审，我最终还是没有跟他的导师联系，直接把论文评语和我批注过的论文寄了回去，希望学生能看到我的批注，也能促进和帮助他的修改。 事情过去 2 个月了，今天突然接到一个匿名的短信问：这篇论文是不是我审的，我回答：是！随后就是沉默，无尽的沉默！ 不知道为什么，感觉不好，也许我又要失去一个朋友了，不管怎样，一篇合格的博士生论文是需要修改的，也是需要真实的意见的，指导老师是需要把关的，评审的老师也是需要负责任的，曾经有一个老师的博士生论文送出来以后，他主动要求撤回去，因为他发现有问题，就要求学生延迟毕业、修改论文！ 说 “No” 不容易，可是一直没有人说 “No”, 这个学位授予系统是迟早要出问题的、社会也是要出问题的。说到底，我真心希望那个学生能够认真对待我的评语和批注，因为我是认真的也是真心的，希望我们的博士论文能够有一定的参考价值而不是一堆废纸！ 同时也提醒我的学生，你们要好好做，因为你们的论文送出去一定也会到其他这样认真负责的老师手中去审，做不好，是一定毕不了业的！ ———————————————— 后记“ 论文评审：说NO的勇气和代价 ”发布后受到了大家的关注，更加令人欣慰的是昨天很晚我收到了论文作者的来信，可以看到这个诚恳的年轻人在受到这个“打击”之后的成长： 摘录如下： ———————————————————————————— 张老师，您好！ 今天收到了学校返回的评审意见，看到了您的详细批阅与建议， 谢谢您在百忙之中的认真审查，也使我看到了一名真正的科技工作者应有的严谨，您就是国内学者中的脊梁！是我学习的榜样！ 虽然结果对我来说很意外，但确实对我未来的人生道路上了一课，我也更加端正了对待科研的态度，我会好好修改论文！ 对于您提出的修改意见，我想做如下说明： （此处略去1000字，学生对论文工作和我主要意见的详细回复和解释） ........ 我自认为自己的博士论文是自己一心一意想的做的，虽然不完整有漏洞，但是肯定没有抄袭，由于水平有限我会尽力改正！我也看到了您的科学网上的博客，您的严谨与热心我从心底佩服，老师也说主要是我论文水平不行，深度不够，您的评价是中肯而准确的！您在博客中说的可能会失去朋友，我觉得您多虑了，请您不必在意！ 我会好好修改，争取能按时完成，尽量写出满足要求的毕业论文！也请您以后继续帮助指导！希望在我未来的道路中能继续得到您的指点，谢谢！ 最后祝您工作顺利，身体健康！ _________________________________________________________________________
王 应 宽 Wang Yingkuan 2011-07-23 Beijing, China 为何国内专家的审稿意见大都如此简单近乎敷衍？ 因为同时在运作 3 本国际英文刊（ IJABE, IAEJ, CIGR Journal ），论文同行评审的专家来自世界各地。每次收到的评审意见千差万别，而且不同国家或地区的专家的评审意见呈现一定的规律性，随即不由得做些比较。比较得出的基本结论是：欧美国家专家的评审意见详尽具有更大参考价值，台湾地区的同行评审专家次之，大陆专家的评审意见最为简省。文后附上几篇评审意见（所列大陆专家评审意见还是相对较好的），看看便知，一目了然。 我曾与编辑同行讨论关于国内专家审稿的问题。共同的见解是，一线一流的专家基本不审稿。若应邀审稿，要么直接拒审，要么敷衍几句了事；比较认真的专家大都让其所指导的研究生代为评审论文。不论让谁审，最后的评审意见与国外专家的评审相比总不令人满意，存在较大的差距。 国外专家评审论文大都是义务劳动，没有任何报酬。但专家们认为自己作为科研人员是科学共同体中的一分子，有义务担任同行专家为他人研究成果的学术质量把关。自己为别人的论文评审把关付出了智慧和劳动，别人也会为自己的研究和论文评审把关，也会付出相应的劳动。专家之间相互协作，相互帮助，虽然没有评审报酬，但大家都觉得平等。而且，国外的专家大都言行一致，故能认真地做好每一篇文章的评审工作。有的评审意见详尽的令人赞叹、钦佩和感动。因此，大家看到他们的评审意见都非常详尽而具有参考价值。 而国内的专家评审论文为何大都仓促应付，三言两语，或言之无物，或毫无参考价值？主要原因是一线一流的专家都太“忙”，以至忙得都没时间做学术了。据我从事学术期刊工作十多年的经历，不论评审中文文章还是英文文章，国内专家评审意见普遍简单，评审的质量不高，不但看不出有改观的迹象，还有进一步恶化的趋势。文章中存在的很多的问题，专家审后没有看出来或没有指出来。如果直接发表，错误或疏漏太多影响论文的质量和期刊的声誉。在外审专家靠不住时，就要依靠内审做些完善和提高。如果外审专家把不好关，编辑部又无能力通过内审把关，发表出来的论文的质量也就可想而知了。是否国内专家不擅长评审论文呢？非也。据了解，许多国内专家被国外知名期刊邀请审稿时，他们非常积极认真地评审论文，并在规定时间返回颇有水准的评审意见。据说他们也能做得与欧美国际同行专家一样好。可见，国内专家评不好国内期刊论文不是水平问题，而是态度问题，“时间”问题，或者有其他方面的原因。 同行评审是学术期刊论文质量把关的重要途径。 如果大家都不在乎，把严肃认真的“盲审”变成“瞎审”，学术危矣！国内期刊请国内专家评审论文大都支付审稿费的。当然，限于各期刊的经济困难，审稿费报酬普遍都不高。因此，同行专家大都不很在乎那点可怜的审稿费。如果评审不好文章会影响专家的声誉和公信度。 国内特别是大陆的专家既不在乎钱，也不在乎自己的声誉，不知道他们究竟在乎啥？ 中国是雷锋诞生的国度，按理说，当志愿者做公益应该很有基础。但在学术圈，就拿国内外同行专家无私奉献评审论文作比较，中国的同行专家做的还很不够，需要好好向国际同行学习。 附： CIGR Journal 栏目主编加拿大专家对一篇退稿文章的评审意见 June 27, 2011 Dear Prof. H L L: Re: CIGR Manuscript 1911 EFFECTS OF TRACTOR INFLATION PRESSURE AND TRAFFIC ON SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES As CIGR section editor, I have conducted a preliminary review of the above manuscript. The manuscript addresses a significant engineering problem in agricultural crop production, and as such, the subject matter is of interest to CIGR. However, the manuscript is deficient in several scientific areas. The decision is to decline the manuscript without peer review. My preliminary review is attached to the end of this email. Please note that the preliminary review is by no means a comprehensive review. The manuscript is released, and you are free to submit it for publication in another journal. Thank you for considering CIGR for publication of your work and I wish you success in getting your work published. Sincerely P.Eng., Ph.D., CIGR Section III editor, Research Scientist, Agricultural Engineering, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Section Editor Review Title: EFFECTS OF TRACTOR INFLATION PRESSURE AND TRAFFIC ON SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES CIGR # 1911 Authors: H L L et al. June 27, 2011 General: The manuscript addresses soil compaction by multiple passes with agricultural machinery which is a timely topic and of importance to sustainable agricultural production. There are numerous grammatical errors although the meaning is generally clear. It is strongly recommended that the authors seek the assistance of someone well versed in English to help with the grammar. The manuscript is not acceptable in its present form. It needs a lot of work. The biggest problem with the manuscript is that key pieces of information are not given, and that the data analysis is not complete. Some of the major deficiencies are listed below although this is by no means an exhaustive list. Soil characteristics. It is well known that soil characteristics have a huge influence on soil compaction. The only description given is that the soil was a sandy loam. Things like soil series, percent sand, silt and clay, soil organic matter all influence compaction and need to be provided. Tractor specifications: Total tractor weight, tractor axle (or wheel) weights, are critical pieces of information required for compaction studies, but they are not given. Tire pressure was given, but no information was given on whether these pressures were the same for front and rear tires. Often, tractor manufacturers recommend different pressures for front and rear tires, particularly on tractors with different sizes of front and rear tires. Slip was measured, but there was no mention made of whether the tractor was free wheeling (no implement draft) or whether it was pulling a load. The drawbar load on a tractor has a huge effect on wheel slip, and must be specified. It was mentioned that a 4WD tractor was used, and different tire sizes were given for front and rear tires which implies that it was a front wheel assist. It needs to be specified whether or not the front wheel drive was engaged. Results: A randomized complete block statistical design with three replicates was specified. However, the results are given in a series of tables with simple means with no statistical analysis. The results need to be subjected to appropriate statistical analysis, i.e. ANOVA or multiple regression analysis, and appropriate post hoc tests applied to determine which means are statistically different from each other. The experimental design employed lends itself to standard statistical analysis of the results. Graphs should be used when appropriate to help illustrate the data and the trends. Table 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 and elsewhere. Cone index has wrong units. Cone index is normally given in MPa or kPa. Also, the values for cone index are much lower than normally expected. Section 2.3 It is not necessary to list all of the equipment used such as oven, air compressor, etc. All you need to say is that samples were oven dried at 105 C for soil moisture determinations. Things like air compressor and pressure gauge are every day shop equipment, are understood to be necessary for any type of experiment where inflation pressures are changed. However, things like the penetrometer, and shear vane meter should be specified. These are specialized pieces of equipment and their performance can affect the results. Section 2.5. Need to provide information on which soil cone penetrometer you used. Also, how many penetrometer measurements per plot per pass? Soil cone penetrometer measurements are typically very “noisy” with a high degree of variability, and multiple measurements are required per plot to get a reasonable estimate of mean penetration resistance. Also, were penetrometer measurements made prior to the first pass to get an estimate of initial soil conditions? Data prior to first pass were given in Table 3.1, but the measurements were not mentioned in the text. Section 2.6. How did you get the shear vane measurements at the various depths? Presumably, you excavated to the required depth, and made the shear vane measurements at the bottom of the excavation. You need to describe the method here. Section 2.7. This section describes in great detail how samples were dried in the oven. This technique is well known. All you need to say that samples were oven dried at 105 C for dry weight determinations. Activities like weighing on a sensitive scale are understood as necessary to get dry bulk density data. However, the critical piece of information of how you obtained samples of a known volume for the dry bulk density determinations is completely missing. Presumably, this was via core samples. You need to specify the coring device, in particular, core diameter and depth. You do not need to give the formula for calculating dry bulk density (Eq. 2.1), or soil moisture content. These formulae are well known by anyone working with soil physical properties. Section 3.2. Not necessary to show all of the detailed calculations for each inflation pressure. Actually, they are all incorrect as they are all missing a closing parenthesis in the denominator which makes the formula ambiguous. Just give the formula, and give the results for the various inflation pressures in a table. Section 3.3 The first sentence does not match the data. If wheel slip is 3.6% at 48 kPa and 2.7% at 97 kPa, then the wheel slip decreases, not increases when inflation pressure is increased from 48 kPa to 97 kPa. Is this change statistically significant? Conclusions: Many of the conclusions are not conclusions from the present study, as things like tire foot print, tire durability, soil deformation were not measured in this study. Some of the information in the conclusions could be included in the discussion section with appropriate references to help explain the results, or the consequence of the results. The conclusions should be limited to the conclusions of the study, i.e. what was done, what was learned, and perhaps the implications or importance of the results to agriculture, science, or future research. References. There are numerous punctuation errors in the references. References are tedious, and the formatting requires special attention. Reference by Raghavan and McKyes 1978 is missing. This was cited on page 5. Also, it is McKyes, not McKyers, there is no ‘r’ in McKyes. You need to carefully check that each reference in the references was cited, and that each citation in the text is included in the references. I did not do a thorough check on this aspect. ________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Wang Yingkuan Editor-in-Chief of CIGR Journal http://journals.sfu.ca/cigr/index.php/Ejounral 台湾一位大学教授评审论文的意见 General Comments: The paper focuses on the phone-based system for vegetable production traceability in the field . The topic is interesting. There are some points in the paper that need to be further clarified. Specific comments: 1. In Abstract, the authors mention that “the compatibility test showed that the success rate was 87.5% on average……”. Why is the average success rate 87.5%? 2. What is the benefit if farmers use the MPRSVT? 3. More details are needed to describe the structure of using the DBMS. Maybe the authors can use the E-R model to explain the DBMS. 4. In Page 7, what is the “CLDC”? 5. More details are needed to explain the operation records of different activities merged into one group. 6. In Figure 3, there is a lot of information regarding the field being able to be inputted in MPRSVT. However, the data packet which is explained in page 8 only consists of the field planting date, field planting field ID, field planting category, field planting species, etc. How does other inputted information of the MPRSVT send to the database? For example, are the fertilization information, pest prevent information, and harvest information also sent by the SMS format? If so, what is the packet format of that information? 7. In the caption of Figure 4, what is MRKSVT ? 8. In Page 9, why was the success rate of the MPRSVT operated on the mobile phones without expansion cards less than that of the mobile phones with expansion card? Some minor issues. 1) In Page 3, “Sections 4 reports the results……..” should be modified to “Section 4 reposts the results….” 2) In Page 7, what is the “UIQ”? 3) In Figure 4, the text “USB Connection” was overlap p ed by the line. 4) In Figure 4, the line with the “Information Collection” is missing an arrow. 5) In Figure 7, the text “field identifying number” was covered by the line. 6) In Figure 8, some texts are placed out of the frames. 7) Please use consistent fonts in figures throughout the article. Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor/Editor-in-chief I recommend the authors should use consistent fonts throughout the article. The paper cannot be accepted in its present form. 中国大陆专家 1 评审论文意见 Section III: Comments This section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need. General Comments: This paper assess the O 2 consumption rate and the CO 2 evolution rate in tomato pomace treated with Pleurotus ostreatus without and with Mn to determine if peak colonization rate (for heightened delignification) was delayed by amendment. Generally speaking, the author’s work is useful and suggestive. The author gives a brief introduction to the related work and compares his ideas to others. The theoretical analysis of this article is strong. In all, this manuscript has good novelty and strong technical strength, I’m looking forward the results of further investigations on this topic. Specific comments: In Table 1, notes are not enough in this manuscript. In the Results and Discussion, results have been detailed explained, but some theoretical analysis of the experimental data are not sufficient. Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor I hope the paper will be published to guide more researchers. Reviewers’ information (Blind to Authors) 中国大陆专家 2 评审论文意见 ( 相对而言属于国内专家评审较为认真仔细的了 ) Section III: Comments This section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need. General Comments: Variable Spray will play an important role in saving resources, protecting environment, raising quality of agricultural product. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate PWM-based continuous variable spray in terms of spray distribution pattern, spray droplet size, and spray angle for flat-fan, hollow-cone and solid-cone nozzles. The test design, results, analysis and conclusion are correct. After re-review, this paper may be published, I think. Specific comments: (1) I have read a paper named “Variable rate Continuous Spray Equipment Based on PWM Technology and Its Spray Characteristics”, which was published in Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2008, 39 (6): 77-80 (in Chinese)”(see the attachment), I think that is a previous study work of the authors. If that is correct, I suggest the author adding that paper in the references of this paper. And then, the contents which have been described in the previous paper can be deleted from this paper. (2) In the abstract “The sensitivities of the spray angles to flow-rate are 0.8254 o /% 、 0.6681 o /% 、 0.5761 o /% respectively for flat-fan, the hollow-cone and the solid-cone nozzles”. In English, without the symbol “ 、 ”. (3) The numerical data in the conclusion are not the same as those in the abstract”. Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor Reviewers’ information (Blind to Authors) 中国大陆专家 3 评审论文意见 Section III: Comments This section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need. General Comments: This paper is more important, but it still needs major revision requiring re-review. Specific comments: Revision suggestions of this paper: 1. The study results and conclusions should be clarified in abstract. 2. It should be described clearly about the data and size of NACA0015 airfoil which was selected in the numerical simulation in section 2.1. 3. It should be described clearly about the specific quantitative conditions of icing in section 3. 4. This paper is required re-review after revision. Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor
标签: 把关
