As both editiorial members and scientific editors of the Journal of Mountain Science play the role of editors, i.e., managing manusripts, including inviting peer-reviewers, communicating withe peer-reviewers and authors, and the EEIC, making recommendation whether a paper is rejected, being revised , and accepted. After a manuscript is accepted, the editor should have a thorough editing on it. ------------------------------- Check the completeness of a manuscript and make corresponding editng. A manuscript should contain these sections: 1. Title (required) 2. Author (the family names should be capitalized) ( required ) 3. Author affiliation ( required. Countries or regions are a must. zip code is better to be added) 4. The first author's and the corresponding author's email addresses (required) 5. Abstract (required) 6. Key words (required) 7. Main body (required) ： 1 ） checking the structure and organization of the paper and the numbering of each section; 2) checking the writing and language including the spelling and grammar; 3) Checking the text, tables, figures and see whether they have duplicate contents that one of them should be removed; 4) checking the figure legend and caption to see whether there are any mistakes; 5) checking the sequence of the figures and tables; 6)checking whether the figures and the words in the figures are clear enough and the words are correct, and whether the words and the lines are in proportion; 7) checking whether the table heads are correct and can be shortened or condensed (to save space). 8. Acknowledgement ( Funding source should be provided ) 9. Reference ( required . Doi should be added if that item of reference has one) 10. Supplementary materials can be provided, including documents, videos, pictures, etc. ----------------------------- This suggestions is also helpful to an author!
Journal of Mountain Science稿件审理流程 Abbreviations ED-Editor SE-Scientific Editor LE-Language Editor EEIC-Executive Editor-in-Chief The manuscript system workflow: Awaiting Admin Checklist: The admin will review the submission to ensure it is complete and has followed journal submission requirements before sujecting to plagiarism Check process. In this stage, the admin may unsubmit the manuscript and notify the authors to supplement necessary materials or files. Awaiting SE Assignment: The EEIC will assign manuscripts to the Scientific Editor for initial review. Awaiting SE Recommendation: The Scientific Editor will do initial review and make recommendation: Reject, Revision or Sent out for peer review. Awaiting EEIC Check: The EEIC will make a decision based on comments and recommendation from the SE. Awaiting ED Assignment: The EEIC will assign the manuscript to the Editor, or reject the manuscript, or suggest revision, and send email to notify the authors. Awaiting Reviewer Selection/Awaiting Reviewer Invitation/Awaiting Reviewer Assignment: The Editors select, invite and assign Reviewers: •Select – is to create the pick list of reviewers •Invite – is to send out the Invitations to the reviewers •Assign – is to assign the manuscript to the reviewers Notes: In the JMS manuscript system, there are two required reviews, as indicated in the progress indicator on the Manuscript Details page. Awaiting reviewer Selection status: Less than two reviewers have accepted the review invitation. Awaiting Reviewer Scores The manuscript is under peer-review. . Awaiting ED Recommendation The ED will make a recommendation to the EEIC based on the peer-review comments. Awaiting EEIC Final Decision The EEIC will make a final decision on the manuscript to decide reject, review, or accept. Production Checklist The accepted manuscript is under final editing and format layout.
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.
Comments and Suggestions from JMS editorial member Prof. Iain Iain on editoral practices Notes: At the end of 2014, I made review on the development and challenges of the Journal of Mountain Science and sent the report to all editorial board members and request their suggestions and commens. I received about ten members' response. Most of them gave high praise on the journal's great development in the past years. Many gave concrete suggestions on how to attact high quality papers and how to raise journal's international impact. The follows are the comments and suggestions from Prof. Iain Taylor, the University of British Columbia, Canada. I think what he said is quite right about how to make decison based on peer-review comments: We always reminded ourselves that we were NOT running an Election. Rarely we got two positive reviews that were badly justified or 2 negatives that were unprofessional. The criteria HAD TO BE THE QUALITY OF THE SCIENCE. I think it can be useful for editors of other journals, thus I paste his letter here. ---------------------------- Dunlian: I have spent some time thinking about your challenge to raise the influence of JMS in the scientific community. I used Volume 11, Number 2, March 2014 as one example for my comments. I still think that worrying about Impact is not the correct path. JMS is already publishing some good papers and we need to see just which ones are cited, say 3 years after publication. The Issue in question contained 24 papers; authors were from 15 countries; 10 papers included authors from China mainland and Taiwan, Korea and Pakistan. It seems that JMS is attracting papers from mountainous areas, which suggests that the title is a reasonable choice. Time from Submission to Acceptance looks good - only one took longer than 10 months. 4 accepted in less that 2 months seems very fast - review and revision in this time is VERY RARE and at Can J. Bot. always had us wondering if the review was really that professional. How long is Springer taking to bring a paper from your acceptance letter note to actual publication? What is your assessment of reviewers? We always checked timeliness, clarity, professionalism and constructive comment to rank reviewers. We also checked to see if serious reviewer comments were actually being acted upon and authors explained their changes AND the items they did not change or were properly justified one way or another. We occasionally used a reviewer who was personally known to one or more of the authors, but always used a 3rd reviewer in these cases. We tried to use at least one reviewer whose first language was English. This was often the way we detected poor language in the paper. Periodically we got conflicting or sloppy reviews. We always reminded ourselves that we were NOT running an Election. Rarely we got two positive reviews that were badly justified or 2 negatives that were unprofessional. The criteria HAD TO BE THE QUALITY OF THE SCIENCE. DO REMEMBER THAT THE EDITOR WITH ANY BEHAVIOUR THAT IS UNPROFESSIONAL (for or against publication) will always add to distrust of the Journal. Enough for now. More if anything comes up later. All the very Best Iain
《山地科学学报（英文版）》自2011年8月开始正式使用ScholarOne 稿件系统。今年5月，为配合新修改的作者指南，对稿件系统也作了相应的修改，如要求投稿人在系统中填写所有作者的姓名，机构，邮箱，同时，系统在向作者发送与该篇稿件有关的信息（投稿，修改，接收，等等）时，会同时向所有作者发送该篇文章的相关邮件。此次修改的主要目的有以下几个方面：1）所有作者均应该对论文负责，特别是文章的通讯作者；2）避免不相干的人员进入作者名单；3）避免冒用知名专家学者的名字；4）避免稿件处理期间和接收后的作者纠纷; 5) 所有共同作者均会收到编辑部发给作者的往来邮件, 也会对作者起到互相监督的作用 (如有数据造假之类的会很谨慎). 汤森路透最新改版升级的ScholarOne 稿件系统增加了一些新的功能，如用户可以根据自己的需要，自行选用英、中、法、日四种语言中的任何一种语言，增加了详细的帮助信息，增加了FundRef模块，可以让作者在投稿的时候填写基金名称，也可以在系统中查找规范的基金名称，还新增了Reviewer Locator模块，该模块根据文章的相关性从Web of Science中自动匹配和推荐一批审稿人，供编辑人员送审时进行选择。 以下是新改版的ScholarOne Manuscript 的功能介绍。 New features of the ScholarOne Manuscript: 1. H eader and footer redesign that is both clean and modern. 对网页的头尾进行了重新设计，使页面看起来更现代，更整洁； 2. The debut of the Language Toggle — giving you the option to see your ScholarOne Manuscripts site in English, French, Chinese, or Japanese. 提供英、法、汉、日四种语言的界面， 用户可以根据需求自行选择； 3. N ew features such as type-ahead search and support for sub-organizational funding relationships have been added to the FundRef functionality。 提供FundRef功能模板的搜索 4. The addition of two new Publisher-Level Reports — Submissions Over Time and Transferred Manuscripts. 新增针对出版者的两种新的报告-- 投稿超期，稿件转移（稿件从一个刊转到另外一个刊） 5. Improvements for duplicate account management. 对一人有多个帐户的管理（可以合并） 6. The ability to grant an extension from the Reviewer List 可以对审稿人的审稿时间进行延期 7. New dashboard queues: Overdue Manuscripts Awaiting Revision and Unsubmitted Manuscripts. 新增主板上的排队显示：等待修改超期的稿件，撤稿的稿件 8. The option to proxy as an author from the Manuscript Header and Manuscripts Lists within ScholarOne Manuscripts 编辑人员可以代替作者进行相关的操作 9. The ability to quickly distinguish between manuscripts in draft form and unsubmitted manuscripts 可以快速识别草稿和撤稿的稿件 10. The addition of a new email tag that enables you to email all reviewers who submitted reviews. 添加了新的邮件标签，使得编辑人员能够同时给所有递交了审稿意见的审稿人发邮件 。
First of all, I am Chinese. If you have ever met me, you would know that I have small but sharp eyes. (Recently, I did some proofs and impressed my co-authors with my ability to catch mistakes.) This Blog is about manuscripts written by Chinese. In one week, I was asked by three different journals to review three manuscripts in English, all written by Chinese. I managed to say no to two journals, and ended up regreting I said yes to one journal. So, today I am sitting in my hotel room by the Thousand-Island Lake, and have just finished reviewing this ms. This experience makes me feel more hopeful than ever that I will be able to make a decent living as a freelance English editor.
Yeah, I finished a draft for our Paper #2 today! It was weeks in the making, figures, captions, new tests, and outline. Still, it takes tremendous efforts to write a research letter. My friends and I jokingly call this process ... ; you guess it right, squeezing tooth paste out of a nearly empty tube
We often meet this question from authors: how long can a manuscriptcan have final decision for the Journal of Mountain Science? For this question,Ireally can't give the authors a definite and certain answer. In fact, the manscript processing period is affected by many factors. The most important, I think, is the manscript quality. Other factors include whether the editors have assigned theappropriate and suitable peer-reviewers in the most shortest time, and whether the peer-reviewers send their comments within the required time, and if a manuscript needs to be revised after review, whether the authors send backtheir manuscripts in the possibly short time. Today, oneauthor write to ask me the same question about the mansucriptprocessing period. The follows is my answer to him and to other authors who want to ask the same queston. Dearauthors, The review process will vary with different manuscripts. For an accepted manuscript, it will experience the process of anti-plagiarism checking (within one day), initial review by the scientific editor (within four days, about 30 percent ofmanuscripts will be rejected after the initial review), peer-review (only manuscripts that have passed the initial review will be sent out for peer-review. We require the reviewers to return comments within 20 days after they formally accept the review invitation), author revision (Some revised manuscript may be sent to the previous reviewersto check their revision once again ), editor'sdecision and finally the executive editor-in-chief'sdecision. Usually peer reviewoccupies the longest time, sometimesit's becauseit costs along time to find sufficientand suitable peer-reviewers. The quality of a manuscript is also a very important factor to attract reviewers to accept the review and give constructive suggestions on the manuscript. Any way, we always try to take any possible measures to shorten the manuscript processing period. Best regards to you QIU Dunlian
JMS has adopted Tompson Reuters' ScholarOne Manuscript system since last September. All manuscripts are processed online and authors can check their manuscript status online by themselves. In spite of that, some authors still write emails to JMS to consult their manuscript status possibly because the manuscript has been processed for a relatively long time or they are urgent to know the final result although the time from submission is only several days. No matter which case it belongs to, we'd like to reply any email consultation by the authors. The following example to consult manuscript status is not desirable. "Dear Editor Kindly let me know the present status of my manuscript." In this email the author didn't tell us the manuscript ID number, nor the article title, evendidn't leave his or hername, only one email address.In such case, the editors will have to write back to request the authors to provide their MS ID number. As JMS has received a large number of manuscripts, and the manuscripts are handled by several editors. Any time when you consult affairs related to your manuscripts, you are suggested to tell us your manuscript ID number and write the MS ID number in the email title too. Otherwise it's difficult for us to check it.
All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Mountain Science (JMS) will besubjected to crosschecking, and then assigned to Scientific Editors (SE) for initial review. SE will make three types of recommendation:(1) Rejection; (2)Revision; (3) sent out for peer-review. After that, the manuscript recommended "sent out for peer-review" willbe sent for peer review. A manuscript may be rejected in the first step--crosschecking. If a manuscript has high similarity with the previously published literature (including the authors'themselves), then it will be rejected directly. During the initial review stage, the SE will make recommendation to reject a manuscript because ofthe following reasons: (1)It is outsidethe scope of the journal; (2)The research is the repetition of old knowledge; (3) The experiment design has serious defects; (4) The languge is extremely poor that may affect understanding; (5) The whole article lacks of logic organization. The peer-reviewer may recommend rejectforsimilar reasons. But peer-reviewers will give more specific comments on amanuscript.
Our never-ending project is being wrapped up. I predicted that the manuscript could be finished and submitted by mid April, so I purchase a r/t to go away for four weeks. Well, my conservative prediction failed. The manuscript will not be submitted in April. I cannot delay my trip, but I am willing to cut it short, if necessary. (The airline usually does not allow a cheap ticket to change its outbound, but may allow change for the return trip, with some penalty.) In the mean time, I discovered a potentially better solution. So, I spent yesterday to investigate it quietly. After having made half a dozen test exps, I understood most of the new solutions. So, I brought up this issue to the team this morning. The evidence I presented was convincing, but it may require extensive revision of the current manuscript (not to mention additional tuning of some model parameters and repeating of all the exps that are reported in the paper). But, science is to advance our understanding of the nature. If it takes more time, so be it. (Ok, young researchers, if you are reading this Blog, be aware that I no longer care about publishing papers or not. This will be my last paper, and it will be a very good one.)
Collection of refusal letters to manuscript review invitation Many scientists or scholars do volunteer peer-reviewforjournals even though they are very busy. It’s the international convention and it’s a great spirit! All JMS’s manuscripts willbe sent out for peer review after they pass the initial review. An appropriate peer-reviewer sometimes is not easytofind. The invited referrees may refuse doing manuscript review for various reasons: some are overloaded with work or with other manuscript review tasks but tell us to keep themin mind next time when we have similar manusccripts, some are not familiar with the contents of the manuscripts or don’t have interest in the contents of the manuscripts, some are in field trip or in vacation so they can’t have time to make comments. Of coursethere are people whojust don’t want to do this job without any reasons. We know most researchers and scholars are very busy. They need to do their daily work and share many otherpublic affairs. It is rare that the invited referrees have no response to us. In most cases when theycan’t review the manuscript, they will immediately write back to explainreasons, andrecommend suitable reviewers.We aregrateful tothese scientists and scholars too. The follows are the collections of refusal letters on manuscript review invitation. 1. Dear colleagues, Thank you for your offer to review. However, I have other commitments now that prevent me from taking more work.I would suggest Terry Jorgenson or Tongyuan Zhang for the review. Thank you, XXX 2 ． Dear Editor, Thanks for your request for review. I am very interested in the subject matter, but am unable to assist with the review at this time because I already have several reviews that I need to complete. Please keep me in mind for future assistance. Listed below are some other possible reviewers. Possible reviewer one Possible reviewer two Possible reviewer three Good luck, XXX 3 ． Dear Editor, I'm sorry for my late response. Regarding your revision inquire, unfortunately I do not believe to be sufficiently inside the paper's topics in order to accomplish an adequate revision. Anyway, I can suggest you Professor XXX XXX, an important Italian Geologist at the National Insitute for Hydrogeological Protection of the National Research Council (CNR - Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche), as a potential reviewer. If you want, you can contact Professor Iovine at the following email address XXX. Best regards XXX 4 ． Dear Editor, Thank you very much for the invitation to review a manuscript for your journal. Unfortunately, though, I have to decline your invitation because I am too busy with other reviews at the moment. Thank you very much in advance for your understanding. Best regards, XXX 5 ． Dear Editor, Greetings from Scotland. In regard to the manuscript you invited me to review, I'm afraid that I don't really have expertise in phytosociology to enable me to give a fair review of it. Sorry that I cannot help you this time. Best wishes XXX 6. Dear Editor, I am very busy with several projects at the moment. I am sorry, but I will not be able to review this manuscript. Sincerely yours, XXX 7 ． Dear JMS, I will not be able to review this manuscript. Thank you for considering me. Sincerely, XXXX 8 ． Dear Editor, I am sorry. I cannot conduct this review because I am currently overloaded by other duties during the next weeks, including several pending reviews. Sincerely, XXXX 9 ． Dear Editor, Thank you for the invitation to review the manuscript about soil temperature on the Tibetan Plateau. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause, but it will not be possible for me to review this manuscript. I am traveling extensively in September and October, and most of this is associated with field work. It simply would not be possible to complete a review in a reasonable time frame. I'm sorry to have to refuse this assignment. Your request came at a very difficult time for me. Yours sincerely, XXX 10 ． Dear Editor, I'm afraid I don't have the opportunity to review this at the moment, but I would suggest the following people would be possible good alternatives for you: XXX, University of XXX. Best regards, XXX 11 ． I am away until 16th September with only occasional email. With best wishes XXX 12 Dear Editor, Thank you for your invitation to review this manuscript. Unfortunately on this occasion I am too busy and must herefore decline your offer. Best wishes XXX 13 ． Sorry, I'll be out of office till end of Sept. 14 ． Dear Editor, Sorry, I can not accept your invitation to review. I can not share my time for research issue because my current position is administration staff. Best wished Respectfully yours XXX 15. Dear editor, I am extremely grateful to you for your kind invitation, but I have to refuse it in this moment because I am currently applying for promotion at my University and I am really very busy. Anyway, my topic of research is valuation of cultural heritage instead of natural heritage. I can recommend you others colleagues specialized in economic valuation techniques. XXX 16. Dear editor, Thanks for the invitation. However I am not qualified in the topic. This article would be better reviewed by a soil scientist. XXX 17. Dear editor, Thank you for the invitation to review. Unfortunately I am in the field and unable to review at this time. Best regards, XXX 18. Unfortunately, I must decline the invitation. The abstract looks interesting but I am already overcommitted for the next month and will be doing fieldwork. You might consider my colleague Dr. XXXXXX as an alternative. Best Regards, XXXXXX
I dare say no one manuscript is published without any revision or editingafter itssubmission. Whena manuscript submitted to JMS isaccepted, it doesn't mean theauthors of this manuscript have beencompletely relieved. In fact, in somewhat, it's just the beginning of the essential revision work. Somemanuscripts are possibly requiredfor revisionformore than tentimes tillevery detail has met the publication requirements. The revision process generally includes these steps: 1. Content revision For a manuscript that needs major revision, it can't be accepted till it has beenrevised according to the reviewers' and edtior's requirements and suggestions. Generally speaking,for an accepted manuscript, the content part only needs minor revision, such as supplementing more recent literature, having an extended discussion, or making the abstract more representativeof the paper, checking the consistency of the cited literature in the text and the literature indexing after the text (the authors, publication date, source, and so on). 2. Style revision Although JMS follows international journal conventions in paper style, it still has some unique styles from other journals, especially in the reference part. Authors are generally instructed to revise their manuscripts according to the requirements in the Guide to Authors or to follow the sample paper style. 3. Revision on figures This is a very important step tohavea beautifully printed journal. Fuzzy images,imageswith low resolution can't meet therequirements. Poorly drawn figures mustbe reproduced. Wordsand the figures shouldbein proportion.Figures (pictures)that canaccurately express the meaningwhen inblack and white coloraresuggested to be transformed into grey scale images. JMShas requirements on the images in a manuscript. 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 grey scale image is required to be 150~225dpi, and the resolution for bitmap image is 600~900dpi. All figures (including pictures, maps, etc.) are required to be in Tiff format . 4. Language revision All accepted manuscripts will experience a language editing process. Some manucripts will be sent to native English speakers for language editing, some language editing will be conductedby editors or those who can write in fluent English.Awkward expression, grammarserrors,spelling mistakes, misused words will be corrected,missed words will be added, inaccurate expression will be improved. All in all, we try to make a manuscript concise, accurate,readable, informative. Sometimes a manuscript is required to be revised again and agian,in most ofthe cases, it is because the authors don't strictly follow the editors' requirements, andin some cases, it's because the edtiors find other problems in further editing process. Authors can have a comparison on theirfirstly submitted manuscripts with their finalpublished papers andcan find the great improvement in the whole paper quality. Many authors feel very satisfied when they get the printed journals or theirpublishedpapers in pdf files. They sendemails to us to show their codial thanks to our editing work. Just as the saying"practice makes perfect", we, as journal edtiors, want to say, fora manuscript, revision makes perfect! Extended reading: We love you, you're perfect, now edit http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_edition/points_of_view/we_love_you_you_re_perfect_now_edit?type=PTPICKS#commentsForm-2587192
Today, a client said to me that I paid for your editing service and you failed me. He used the example of buying a pair of socks. I was speechless... Ok, editing a manuscript costs much more than buying a pair of socks. We all know that. But, what else do they differ? About once or twice a year, a client or two would complain to me that the journal editor didn't think "the edited paper" was good enough to be accepted. Trouble for me, because I need to find out why so. (Note: I edited about 70 papers last year, so I still consider myself a good English editor even with one or two complaints each year.) Quite often, I find "new text" was added to the paper after my editing. Once or twice, I feel every sentence is perfect, but the paper is on a topic that I don't know well so I cannot defend my editing. That is why I do not like to edit papers outside of my training (meteorology and physical oceanography--still a lot of topics in these fields may read like Greek to me). I can edit each sentence, but I may not make the reviewers understand a paragraph. Because, it is the author's job to explain what the research is about. I try to make it read more like native English, but I cannot explain something that is not there... Oh, it's so frustrating when someone thinks editing a manuscript is like buying a pair of socks. Revision, revision, revision. That is the key to good writing. I have no magic ward to edit a manuscript (only) once and ensure it will be accepted. I would love to put a sticker on it, EDITED BY ZUOJUN YU, if that would help. (I am not joking, some of my clients did put my name in their replies to show that it should not have language problem.) So, please do not contact me, if you are trying to buy a pair of socks... Related Blog: 编辑手稿和定做礼 服 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=306792do=blogid=455368
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．
Evaluating a Manuscript From its Cited Literature Reference (literature citation) is an important part of a science paper, and itis an important criteria for me to do initial review on the manuscripts sumbitted to the JMS. For those manuscripts that have no reference or only several references and they are mainly papers that the authors previously published, I'll reject the papers or send them back to the authors for revision; For those manuscripts that contain a long list of literature, I'll check whether what they cite in the text are in consistency with the listed literature in the reference. If not, the manuscripts will be rejected or sent back to the authors forrevision. For those manuscripts that only cite literature written in Chinese or written in the mother tongue of the authors, I'll ask the authors tosupplementrelated literatureswritten in other languages, especially in English. General issues in referenceand thecitation in the text ofthe manuscripts: 1. No oronly a few literature are listed in the reference; 2. Only the authors' literature are listed in the reference; 3. Only Chinese literature orliterature written in the authors' mother tongue are listed in the reference; 4. The literature listed in the Reference are not in consistent to the cited literature in the text in content or in author names, publication years, ect.; 5.No citation is mentionedin the text whereothers' views andmethods are quoted; 6. A great deal of citation is accumulated intheoneor two places in the text.
I hardly reject any manuscripts, unless it’s way out of line. Instead, I choose “major revision” to give authors a second chance, if I think the work needs serious revision. However, I rejected a manuscript after 40 minutes. The reason? Lack of literature research. Repeating published work without knowing, a lesson we should all remember.
标签: manuscript
