初审，38天，也不知道为什么这么慢，不知道是两个还是三个审稿人，只给了两个审稿人（1和3）的意见，一个同意一个拒，编辑给拒了。附上拒信
Dear Prof. ,

Thank you for submitting the above-mentioned manuscript. We are unfortunately unable to accept your manuscript for publication in Angewandte Chemie. Since considerably more Communications are received than we can possibly publish in the limited available space, a selection process has to be applied. In the course of this the opinions of the referees are a prime consideration but an article is also as》sessed as to whether it is of great significance for the development of a topical area of chemistry.

Our guidelines for referees (see www.angewandte.org, "For Referees&quot outlines the criteria referees should use in deciding on the importance of a manuscript. These criteria are also those used by the editors in deciding on the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript. Manuscripts that narrowly fail to meet the standards required for Angewandte Chemie, may, AFTER REVISION, be suitable for one of Angewandte\'s sister journals. If you decide for this option, please explain in the accompanying letter to the chosen journal, which changes you have made and, more importantly, which not, giving reasons why not.

We are very sorry that we cannot give a more positive reply in a case such as this one. We have been receiving so many communications lately that we can almost only accept those manuscripts which receive clear-cut positive referee reports.

Yours sincerely,
Dr. Haymo Ross
Deputy Editor
Angewandte Chemie, a journal of the Gesellschaft Deutscher Chemiker (German Chemical Society, GDCh),
published by Wiley-VCH: www.wiley-vch.de
REVIEWER REPORT

EVALUATION:

Reviewer\'s Responses to Questions

1. Please rate the importance of the reported results

Reviewer #1: Highly important (top 20%)

Reviewer #3: Too specialized

--------------------

2. Please rate the citation of previous publications

Reviewer #1: Appropriate

Reviewer #3: Appropriate

--------------------

3. Please rate the length of the manuscript

Reviewer #1: Concise

Reviewer #3: Concise

--------------------

4. Please rate the verification of hypotheses and conclusions by the presented data

Reviewer #1: Fully consistent

Reviewer #3: Major inconsistencies

--------------------

5. Please indicate which other journal you consider more appropriate

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

拒我们的审稿人主要有两点一是材料不新，二是性能不好，两点搁哪都是硬伤。但得看跟什么比了，我们明确指出他这说的两点都是不科学和公正的。他说我们的材料The molecular structure and design concept presented in this work are not novel. Similar 。。。。was published by 。。。 group and this molecule is si《mple derivative of a know compound.

两周之后回复申诉并提交修改稿。附上我们的申诉信， 必须要指出审稿人事实错误，语言最好简洁精炼到位。
Dear Dr. Haymo Ross,
Thank you very much for your e-mail regarding our manuscript 。。。, which has been submitted to Angew. Chem. as a communication. This manuscript has been rejected based on the comments from the referee 3.
I am writing to appeal against the referee 3’s unjust evaluation on our manuscript. The referee 3’s main objections on the innovativeness of molecular design and evaluation of device performance are not appropriate.
With these key questions clarified and evidenced by the supplementary experiment results, we think our work will prove to “make substantial contribution”, as the referee 1 has commented, to 。。。。.
Enclosed is the point-to-point response to the referees’ questions.
We wish to re-submit the further revised version for your re-consideration. Thank you very much for your time and patience!
I am looking forward to hearing from you.

With best regards!
。。。
Response
1、It is well known that small changes in the molecular structure may result in significant difference in luminescent and electrical properties. Many “similar 。。。” in 。。。 published in recent high-quality journals were based on “known” compounds, 详细举例。说明自己东西的特点及不同之处。And this is the key point to understand the novelty and significance of our work.
2、device performance他的pingjia方式不对，把我们的东西跟。。。对比，对比的方式不恰当！涉及到很多工作部分，就不列举了。

三周后，换了个senior as《sociate editor，并另找了一个审稿人，万幸同意接收！
Title: ""
DOI: 。。。
for citing the article before publication in an issue, please use this DOI number.
Dear 。。。,
Thank you for your submission of 。。。. We are pleased to inform you that the above-mentioned manuscript has been accepted for publication in Angewandte Chemie.
However, we request that you revise your manuscript taking into consideration the enclosed reviewer recommendations.
REVIEWER REPORT
EVALUATION:
Reviewer\'s Responses to Questions
1. Please rate the importance of the reported results
Reviewer #1: Highly important (top 20%)
Reviewer #2: Highly important (top 20%)

2. Please rate the citation of previous publications
Reviewer #1: Appropriate
Reviewer #2: Appropriate

3. Please rate the length of the manuscript
Reviewer #1: Concise
Reviewer #2: Concise

4. Please rate the verification of hypotheses and conclusions by the presented data
Reviewer #1: Fully consistent
Reviewer #2: Fully consistent

5. Please indicate which other journal you consider more appropriate
Reviewer #1: (No Response)
Reviewer #2: (No Response) 返回小木虫查看更多