审稿人难找，优秀的审稿人更难找，这是国际性的问题，也许Naure和Science发出的审稿邀请被拒审的可能性会小得多。大多数期刊为了能够获得两份或者三份合格的的审稿意见，会向十几位甚至几十位审稿人发出邀请。有些邀请信没有收到回复，可能是邮箱地址变了，邮件无法送达，部分拒审是因为专业方向不对口，而大部分是因为太忙或者是无理由地拒审。 审稿人为什么会拒审呢？有经验的审稿人一般都比较忙，很认真的审稿人更收到越来越多的审稿邀请，让他们无暇顾及。在这种情况下，该如何提高审稿人应审的积极性呢？去年，Springer就如何激励审稿人的问题对近4万名同行评审专家进行了问卷调查，共收到5067 份问卷回复。其中：审稿人比较认可的激励措施包括(见文后的图)：1）向审稿人开放数据库中作者选定的期刊的权限；2）给作者开放数据库中作者选定的电子图书的权限；3）给审稿人开放审稿期刊的权限；4)获得免费电子图书；5）一定时间段的数据库使用权限；6）免费的印本图书；7）给予一定折扣的发表费减免；8）给审稿人发认证证书；9）在期刊网站致谢审稿人; 10)给审稿人一定的经济报酬。。。。 我们借鉴了Springer调查表中的内容，针对本刊的实际情况作了一些修改，并增加了 “ 评选年度优秀审稿人 ” 和“邀请优秀审稿人加入编委会”这两条。为了让邀请的审稿人了解这些，我们对在线稿件系统中的审稿邀请信进行了修改，在邀请信的末尾补充了Reward Reviewer的相关内容。对国内审稿人，我们会根据审稿质量给予200-300元/篇的审稿费。 以下是我刊Journal of Mountain Science的审稿邀请函： —————————————————————————————— Dear Dr/Prof. Wang: Manuscript ID 15-XXXX entitled XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX has been submitted to the Journal of Mountain Science (JMS), a SCI-indexed international journal. JMS is sponsored by the Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, Chinese of Academy of Sciences, and published by Springer. I invite you to review this manuscript. The 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 review. If you are unable to review at this time, I would appreciate you recommending another expert reviewer. You may e-mail me with your reply or click the appropriate link at the bottom of the page to automatically register your reply with our online manuscript submission and review system. Once you accept my invitation to review this manuscript, you will be notified via e-mail about how to access ScholarOne Manuscripts, our online manuscript submission and review system. You will then have access to the manuscript and reviewer instructions in your Reviewer Center. I realize that our expert reviewers greatly contribute to the high standards of the Journal, and I thank you for your present and/or future participation. We subscribe to referee confidentiality rules. On the other hand, we are aware of the relatively common practice of handing a review onto someone else in the laboratory. If carried out correctly, this can in fact be an important part of training, but it should be reserved for experienced postdoctoral researchers. Thus, The JMS journal allows co-refereeing with one other senior member of a referee's laboratory as part of the mentoring process only if the primary referee has independently evaluated the manuscript and agrees with the report filed. For co-review, conflict of interest and confidentiality rules apply to both referees. In order to provide accountability and appropriate credit, we request that the name of the co-referee be documented to the editors. If an invited referee does not have the time to review, another member of the laboratory or institute can be recommended to the editors. We provide the following types of reward to the reviewers: 1. Free access to the Journal for one year; 2. A copy of the digital journal of the current year; 3. Discount toward article processing charge (for Open Access article) or free of color figure charge; 4. Certificates of Recognition 5. Outstanding reviewer certificate will be awarded to excellent reviewers; 6. Online reviewer list in JMS web and the reviewer list in the digital journal of the last issue of current year; 7. being selected to join the editorial team. Sincerely, Journal of Mountain Science -----------------------------------------------------------
A letter to an editor--on reviewer invitation and editor's recommendation Journal of Mountain Science has recruited a group of active international editors (usually young scientists) to manage manuscripts. Their responsibility is to select and invite reviewers, communicate with reviewers, authors, and the executive editor-in-chief, and make recommendation based on the peer-reviewers' comments and his own judgement. We have prepared PPT to guide them how to handle the manuscripts in the ScholarOne Manuscript system and tell them the reviewer selection and invitation rules. Generally I check the manuscript processing status every day and write emails or leave messages in QQ to the editors to remind them (or to urge them to speed up the procedure) or to give suggesions to them on the reviewer selection, sometimes have a discussion with them about their recommendation. The following is the letter that I wrote to one editor when I found he invited a reviewer who is in the same institute as that of the authors, and two of the reviewers are from the same country as that of the authors. Our rule is that the reviewer should be from different organizations from that of the authors and at least one of the reviewers should be outside the authors' own countries. ------------------------------------- Dear Dr. XXX, I have read your recommendation but I returned the manuscript status to reviewer selection and extended the deadline for one previously invited reviewer to submit his comments because I found both of the present reviewers are from China, and one of them is from the same institute as that of the authors. To avoid interest conflict and fair judgement,I think a third reviewer is necessary. Sincerely X X X Executive Editor in Chief, Journal of Mountain Science Institute of Mountain Hazards andEnvironment, CAS P.O.Box 417 No.16,South Sect.2, the 1st Ring Road(Yihuanlu) Chengdu 610041, China Tel:028-85252044 http://jms.imde.ac.cn --------- I pasted my recently written more detailed suggestions to editors here ( July 8, 2015) About Selecting and Inviting Reviewers: The online manuscrpt system will list some potential reviewers by matching the title and keywords of the manuscript (MS) with published papers. The editors need to check the recommended reviewers and decide whether to invite them. Before selecting the recommended reviewers, we need to check the reviewers' affiliations (to avoid selecting reviewers who are in the same institutions) and the email address (to ensure it's effective and the most updated), and check the reviewers' past research experience and publication records ( to avoid selecting reviewers who have once been in the same project groups with the authors or who are co-authored, and to see whether the reviewer is qualified to do peer-review). The editors can invite reviewers not in the recommended list. We need to create account for these reviewers (on the right of the manuscript panel) . Generally we should invite reviewers outside the authors' countries or regions and at least one of them should be from English speaking countries. Editors should check the manuscript status frequently to ensure each MS has at least two reviewers to accept the invitation, remove those who write to say they are unavailable or decline to review from the invited reviewer list in time so as to avoid that the system send repeated notification letter to the invited reviewers.
How to reply to peer review comments when submitting papers： http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/859/2/How_to_reply_to_referees.pdf How_to_reply_to_referees.pdf
“一个领域的发展需要大胸怀”这个命题明显是正确的。 但是，当下很多简单道理并不是很多人明白，特别是已经做到所谓“专家”层次的。大环境在这里，科研各个领域发展就就这样。有时哪怕有1~2个大家出现，有啥用；一个池塘相当于大海微不足道！ 上述感叹来自于我最近投到CR一篇文章。其中一个所谓专家的意见真是服了。 见下面 Reviewer #2 ，其中 Reviewer #1 作为参考。 Comments from reviewer(s): Reviewer #1 (Comments to the Author): ********此处省略。These findings are important to the evolutionary studies of H7N9 virus. I think the manuscript deserves publication. Comments from reviewer(s): Reviewer #2 (Comments to the Author): In the study of Zhang et al., the authors used the latest H7N9 and related virus sequences to infer the genesis and pathway of H7N9 evolution . However, poor information has been provided to the public. In the first point, 此处省略 The second point 此处省略 The third point, 此处 省略 In general, the novelty of this study is very poor. 此处省略 这是一篇病毒文章，我对于病毒领域完全是个新人。之前做过一些分子进化东西，趁着H7N9问题，做些病毒的分子进化一些问题。 心里想，要是做的好，以后可能把病毒分子进化做为自己的一个发展方向。 可是遇到这种reviewer让我对我以后继续做病毒领域心里凉了很多，特别是与编辑沟通以后，说这个reviewer是病毒领域专家，心里更凉凉。这种专家在，我怎么敢玩。就是玩也不敢在国内玩呀！ 反正看到先是 poor再是 very poor，心里非常失望。倒不是对我做的差而失望，因为从ta意见里我看到的是狭隘，不是对我文章公正的评述。 比如，我觉得要是对一个文章说poor，你至少做过详细的评论才能做结论吧，而不是一上来就是poor。 比如，假设我这篇文章接收了，我就会信心十足，下次说不定就申请病毒相关基金。我这么一个好青年就忽悠进来了。 这下好，咬了我一口。 一个有志向的青年在爬山爬到半山腰的时候，受到鼓励是多么美好的事情。 现实也许与这个恰恰相反，往往是受到打击，爬个屁，都受伤了，还是保命要紧。 分子进化啥方向都可以搞，不是离了病毒就玩不了，还有植物分子进化， 动物分子进化等。 就是我实在要搞，有了工作是不是投到国内杂志，我就要慎重考虑了。（PS，顺便说一句，老是说国内杂志不行，看来不是杂志不行，也许还有一大帮“reviewer”不行）。 我是多个领域可以搞，那些只能搞一个领域的人，如果受到“压迫”怎么办？ 敢反抗吗？估计是不敢，要不然后果很严重。 PS， 写的可能带些个人情绪在里面，我觉得大部分内容是差不多的。
Once in a while, you feel your efforts have been appreciated. Here is one such example. Overview: This is very nice paper that carefully proposes diagnostics for the dynamics of the Indian Ocean’s OMZs . The circulation model is not high resolution and as such the results ar e necessarily dependent on parameterizations and the issues of advection vs. mixing inevitably rear their heads. The authors are however very careful to point this out in their discussions (in the text and the Appendices) and as such do not “overreach”in their interpretations. One could say that this study exhausted what could be done/learned with these types of approaches and sets the stage for more complex models. I very much enjoyed reading the paper and recommend the paper be accepted with some minor revisions considered.
Today I see a cartoon aboutthe topic of paper acception. It's a long and arduousroad fromsubmission to acception. Many people will be involved in the process, but mainly two kinds ofpeople are involved, reviewers andeditors. And it will involve many steps too: anti-plagiarism checking, initial review, peer-review, revision and response, then for some papers peer-review andrevision again (in most cases, more than once), and finally accepted. A quick and smooth process,afair judgement(by the referees) and constructive comments and suggestions from reviewers' and editors' arevery important for the authors and safeguarding the journal quality! This cartoon is quoted from internet.
Dear Dr. XXX: Thank you for reviewing manuscript "Assessment and Analysis on the landslide of XXXX" for the Journal of Mountain Science. On behalf of the Editors of the Journal of Mountain Science, we appreciate the voluntary contribution that each reviewer gives to the Journal. We thank you for your participation in the online review process and hope that we may call upon you again to review future manuscripts. Sincerely, XXX Edior, Journal of Mountain Science ####@@@@#### It's copied and modified from ScholarOne Manuscript Center
Authors' response to reviewers' comments It's really a time-consuming thing to respond to each item of the reviever's comments.But it's a very important part totell the editor that you havecarefully considered thereviewers's comments and suggestions.Sometimes the editors will send the authors' response to the reviewers for further checking when an articles are required to make major revision. Here I show one authors's detailed response. ___________________________________________- The Revision Explanation for all Reviewers Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author: Reviewer: 1 1. The significance of LAI for mountain areas should be clearly stated and extended. Revision explanation: Thank you very much for your good idea. Indeed, in the previous version of this manuscript, there are no specific statement about the significance of LAI for mountain areas. But it is really quite important and should be stated carefully in this paper. So according to your advice, we added the corresponding contents in the second paragraph of “Introduction”. During these contents, we illustrate the significance of LAI for mountain areas from 3 aspects. The detailed information can be seen from those of “For mountain areas, ……Firstly……Secondly……Lastly…..” in the latter part of the second paragraph of “Introduction”. 2. Every figure should have its independence and integration. Place name(s) should be included. Fig.1 and Fig. 11 are too poor. Revision explanation: Thanks a lot for your suggestion. According to it, we have added place name(s) in corresponding figures. Many figures indeed have poor quality. In order to improve it, we redesign and reproduce each of these figures according to the specific requirements of the editorial office of the journal. 3. English language of this manuscript is rather poor. It needs great improvement. Revision explanation: Thank you very much for your gentle reminder. After our revision on the technical problems, another member in our group whose English is quite well has checked the whole contents especially focusing on the grammar and vocabulary problems. After that, we have invited a native English-language colleague of professor Arthur Cracknell to help us improve the whole paper. Therefore there are great improvement in the language of this manuscript. 4. The study area has a very strange shape. How is it defined? It seems that it is cut. Revision explanation: Thank you very much for your question. You are quite right that it is cut out from a large area. It is defined according to the main type of vegetation. As stated in the part of “2.1 study area”, our study area locates in Dayekou forest center in Heihe watershed of Gansu province and has several kinds of vegetation. But our study focuses only on one kind of coniferous tree-Picea crassifolia. Our field measurements are performed aiming to this type of vegetation and thus the models we establish in this paper can only be used for it. So we cut out the concentrated distribution area of this type of vegetation and as a result, the shape of it seems a little strange. In order to make it more understandable, we add some explanation in the part of “Study area”. 5. A total of 11 figures is included. Too many! and most of them have poor quality. Revision explanation: Thank you very much for your gentle reminder. Your advice is quite justified. 11 figures seem too many. So according to it, we move 5 unnecessary figures and only reserve 6 of them. These 6 figures are all been reproduced according to the requirements of this journal, especially on the format and size of them. The corresponding information in the text have also been revised. 6. The leaf area index (LAI) is ecologically important, but what does it mean for mountain regions? Revision explanation: Thank you for your meticulous reminder. Yes, the LAI is ecologically important and also significant for mountain areas. According to your advice, we further review and read many papers and then conclude its significance from 3 aspects. The 1st is from the aspect for controlling water loss and soil erosion; the 2nd aspect focuses on the characterization of impact on local climate; the 3rd is from the aspect of reference for the study of carbon cycle (carbon source and sinks). These are illustrated based on the terrain and climate characteristics of mountain areas. The detailed contents can be seen from the second paragraph of “Introduction”. 7. The title of the manuscript (Retrieval and analysis of leaf area index in mountain area) is not very adequate. The text did not include analysis of leaf area index. It should be "Topographic correction-based retrieval of leaf area index in mountain areas". Revision explanation: Thank you very much for your excellent advice. We have corrected it according to your advice. Thanks again for all your comments which are very helpful for us! Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author: Reviewer: 2 1. The authors present LAI measurements its relation with reflectance and vegetation indices. The efforts made by authors is commendable but it is not very clear how the authors have removed topographic and shadow effect. It will be essential to compare reflectance measurements with the satellite observed reflectance. Revision explanation: Thank you very much for your praise as well as question. As out study focuses on the retrieval of LAI based on the comparison between field measurements and the satellite observed reflectance (together with vegetation indexes) before and after topographic correction, so it is essential to make this key point clear. Due to the effect of topographical variation, there is a difference in the reflectance between shady slope and sunny slope, so we need to remove the topographic and shadow effect. This can be realized by using various topographic correction models which had begun from the beginning of the 1980s and become more and more popular nowadays. The specific model we use here is the SCS+C model which can remove the impact of terrain effectively based on the relationships among sun, senor and canopy simultaneously. Its main principle can be seen from equation (3) to (6). This model has been widely used and its effect has also been validated in many studies. In this study, the effectiveness of the correction can be validated from the different change on surface reflectance before and after topographic correction in shady slope and sunny slope. In summary, through the topographic correction in combination with the slope and aspect of the study area from the DEM, the solar zenith angle and azimuth angle from the optical image, we finally remove the topographic and shadow effect efficiently. In order to make all above more clearly, we revise some contents in the part of “Topographic correction” in this manuscript. Based on these, our goal can be ultimately achieved. 2. Authors may consider to write conclusion separately and discussion combined with results. Revision explanation: Thanks a lot for your excellent suggestion. According to it, we have written the conclusion and discussion separately in the fifth part of this manuscript. And also the discussion is performed combined with the specific result. After all these, the conclusion and discussion become more targeted. Thanks again for all your excellent comments which are quite valuable for us! Editorial Office Comments to the Author Too many figures in this paper. please move the unnecessary ones. And send all figures back as Tiff format. The fonts in the figures and pictures are required to use Times New Roman, and word sizes should be in proportion to the figures (charts, pictures), and the resolution for color graph and grey scale image is required to be 150~225dpi, and the resolution for bitmap image is 600~900dpi. You should ask a native English-language colleague to help you improving the language in the paper before resubmission. Revision Explanation: Thank you very much for your sincere advices. According to it, we have moved 5 unnecessary figures and only reserve 6 of them. These 6 figures are all been redesigned and reproduced according to your specific requirements, especially on the format and size of them. The corresponding information in the text have been revised. These figures are also been uploaded in Tiff format individually. For the language problems, after our revision on the technical problems, another member in our group whose English is quite well has checked the whole contents especially focusing on the grammar and vocabulary problems. After that, we have invited a native English-language colleague of professor Arthur Cracknell to help us improve the whole paper. So there must have great improvement in the language of this manuscript. Finally, thank you very much for all your excellent comments and advices again. These comments are very helpful for the improvement of this manuscript as well as our research in the future. We sincerely appreciate you for your fruitful work. Best wishes to you all!
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
How to write a review invitationletter? Allmanuscripts submitted toour journal JMSwill be sent out for peer-review unless they are directly rejected after the initial review. Nowadays with the large increase in manuscript amount around the world, findingan appropriate reviewer who is willing toreviewthe manuscript is not an easy thing sometimes. Anyway, we try to look for the most appropriate scholars from the editorial members, the related literature databases and the Web of Science database. A proper review invitation letter is also a very important part to the sucessful invitation. Then how to write a review invitation letter? I think a review invitation letter should include these parts: (1) a concise and clear e-mail title to let the email reciever directly know what the letter is about( for example, "Please kindly review the manuscript 11-2202 from JMS); (2)a brief introduction on our own journal(this can be attached as an email signature too); (3) Telling the reviewer the name of themanuscript title,the related requirements on the paper reviewing, the deadline to finish the review;(4) Requestingthe reviewer torecommendonesuitalbe reviewer if they wouldn't like to or can't review the manuscript (maybe unfamiliar to thecontents of themanuscript, oroverloaded with other tasks,or in otherinconvenient situations);(5) expressingour appreciationto the reviewer for their supporting to the journal andour wishes to have their early response. The follow is an example of areview invitation letter for one manuscript. Dear Prof. Marvin, Sincere greeting from Chengdu, China, the hometown of the great panda! Journal of Mountain Science (JMS) is an international peer-reviewed English journal on mountain science. We would like to invite you to review a manuscript entitled " Statement on water losses in arid and Semi-arid zone " . Enclosed are themanuscript and thereview form.If you'd like to review it, could you pls finish the review and send back the comments before August 20? When reviewing, you can directly make comments or have a revision on the manuscript, but please also fill in the review form! If you can notreview it, could you plsrecommend one suitable reviewer for this paper? We'll be greatly grateful for your supporting for JMS. I look forward to your early reply. Best regards, JMS
ProblemsinManuscript Reviewer Recommendation Generally speaking, many English journals require authors recommend two to five reviewers for their own manuscripts. I find several issues exist in the reviewer recommendation. 1. Don't knowwho to recommend Some authors, especiallythose who have neverhad their papers publishedin anEnglish journals, feel difficult to recommend reviewers. So they ask the editors to choose reviewers for their manuscripts. Sure, the editors can try to find the suitable reviewers for all manscripts. But sometimes it may prolong themanuscript handling process if editors have to look for reviewers for all manuscripts. So it's better for the authors to recommend several reviewers closely related to the research fields of their papers. 2.Only recommend one's acquaintance as reviewers In order to have one's manuscript to pass review, many authors only recommend their acquaintance as reviewers. If the reviewer isvery familiar to your research and give pertinent comments and suggestions, then it's agood recommendsation. If the revieweris not quite familiar to your researchandgive some irrelevant comments and suggestions, it will not helpful to your future research and development. If the reviewer is familiar to your research but still give high comments to your paper even he knows it's not worth it, it is harmful both to the journal and the author. So, I suggest authors recommend reviewerswho they are not familiar toand who do research closely related to their research field. Then they can get objective comments andsuggestions! 3. Wrongly write the reviewers' emails and other relevant information Some authors search by Google and casually select the reviewers from the internet.Internet is a good way to obtain the reviewer information. But it needs double checking whether the email address are still effective. One author recommended3 reviewers for their manuscript, but I found two of them are no longer effective.I have tosearch the effective email address of the recommended reviewers (judged based on their institution and research fields)on the internetand thenhave a try. It cost me lots of time for dealing with one manuscript. 建议： １．如果期刊要求作者推荐审稿人，作者最好推荐，这样可以节省编辑处理稿件的时间，缩短稿件处理周期．中国作者最好推荐国外的审稿人（特别是英语国家的审稿人），审稿人还有可能能够从文字上对稿件进行修改润色．本刊也极力主张中国作者推荐英语国家的审稿人，或者以英语为工作语言的审稿人． ２．建议最好推荐与论文的研究领域密切相关的非熟人，这样可以得到非常中肯的意见和建议； ３．选取论文中最相关的关键词，从文献数据库（Springer, Elsevier）中搜索最相关的文献，根据通讯作者的信箱在网上搜索作者的相关信息，选取最合适的审稿人；另外,通过相关英文期刊的网站公布的编委信息查找审稿人也是一个不错的办法. ４．对通过熟人得到的或者是网上搜索到的审稿人邮箱地址和其它相关信息，最好进行认真核实，以免因审稿人信息不正确而影响稿件的送审．
As an active researcher in the field and a freelance English editor, I find more and more I have to say "No" to journal editors when asked to review manuscripts. Here are two good examples. In one case, I did an open review for a manuscript, since I knew one of the authors and thought sending my review to him would help them to get ready for the revision. One of the many constructive comments was about their English presentation. A while later, the first author asked me to provided (paid) English editing service, and I said I could not. He "begged" because there was no time to find another editor. I ended up did a very light (free) editing. I don't remember what happened, but I am sure I would have said "No" to the editor, if I were asked to re-review the paper. Yesterday, I said "No" to another journal editor, because he asked me to re-review a paper that I edited for fee (after I reviewed it first--What was I supposed to tell my client, like "Sorry, I was one of the reviewers who said major revision is needed"?). So, if you don't want to review too many manuscripts for English journals, become a freelancer like me
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。
标签: reviewer
