24小时热门版块排行榜     意得辑论文润色20周年下单送200

查看: 1100  |  回复: 4

mj2014

铜虫 (正式写手)

[交流] 给大家分享elsevier的“据稿的八大原因”,总结得很到位!已有3人参与

链接: http://www.elsevier.com/connect/8-reasons-i-rejected-your-article

When a manuscript is submitted to a high-quality scholarly journal, it goes through intense scrutiny  — even before it's seen by the editor-in-chief and selected for peer review. At Elsevier, between 30 percent to 50 percent of articles don't even make it to the peer review process.
As Editor-in-Chief of Carbon, the international journal of the American Carbon Society, Dr. Peter Thrower experiences this situation first-hand. His advice to authors: "By avoiding these pitfalls, you will save reviewers, editors and staff time and frustration, and ensure that your work is judged by its scientific merit, not mistakes."

1. It fails the technical screening.
The article contains elements that are suspected to be plagiarized, or it is currently under review at another journal. (Republishing articles or parts of articles, submitting to one or more journals at the same time or using text or images without permission is not allowed. See our ethical guidelines.)
The manuscript is not complete; it may be lacking key elements such as the title, authors, affiliations, keywords, main text, references and all tables and figures).
The English is not sufficient for the peer review process,
The figures are not complete or are not clear enough to read.
The article does not conform to the Guide for Authors for the journal it is submitted to.
References are incomplete or very old.

2.  It does not fall within the Aims and Scope.
For the journal Carbon, the material studied may contain carbon, but is not carbon.
The study uses a carbon material but the focus is on something different.
There is no new carbon science.

3.  It's incomplete.
The article contains observations but is not a full study.
It discusses findings in relation to some of the work in the field but ignores other important work.

4.  The procedures and/or analysis of the data is seen to be defective.
The study lacked clear control groups or other comparison metrics.
The study did not conform to recognized procedures or methodology that can be repeated.
The analysis is not statistically valid or does not follow the norms of the field.

5.  The conclusions cannot be justified on the basis of the rest of the paper.
The arguments are illogical, unstructured or invalid.
The data does not support the conclusions.
The conclusions ignore large portions of the literature.

6.  It's is simply a small extension of a different paper, often from the same authors.
Findings are incremental and do not advance the field.
The work is clearly part of a larger study, chopped up to make as many articles as possible.

7.  It's incomprehensible.
The language, structure, or figures are so poor that the merit can't be assessed. Have a native English speaker read the paper. Even if you ARE a native English speaker. Need help? We offer language services.

8.  It's boring.
It is archival, incremental or of marginal interest to the field (see point 6).
The question behind the work is not of interest in the field.
The work is not of interest to the readers of the specific journals.
回复此楼
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

yuguiyan

至尊木虫 (文坛精英)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
跟爱思唯尔没啥关系

[ 发自小木虫客户端 ]
2楼2014-10-23 00:04:57
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

mj2014

铜虫 (正式写手)

引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by yuguiyan at 2014-10-23 00:04:57
跟爱思唯尔没啥关系

是 Elsevier Connect发布的文章啊,见
http://www.elsevier.com/connect/8-reasons-i-accepted-your-article
3楼2014-10-23 00:45:53
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

自私的猫1988

荣誉版主 (文坛精英)

优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
Accepted manuscripts all seem alike, but every rejected MS was rejected in its own way.
4楼2014-10-23 09:42:58
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

nono2009

超级版主 (文学泰斗)

No gains, no pains.

优秀区长优秀区长优秀区长优秀区长优秀版主


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
都是非常一般的理由,适合入门者。
5楼2014-10-23 10:30:35
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 mj2014 的主题更新
最具人气热帖推荐 [查看全部] 作者 回/看 最后发表
[基金申请] 今天再没消息,估计就直奔9月上旬了。。 +8 wade0769 2022-08-18 11/550 2022-08-18 18:35 by qqqq9q
[基金申请] 理性探讨:为啥蛆到饭点就要出来了,难道不该吃食吗? +8 Lin-Edu 2022-08-12 20/1000 2022-08-18 18:19 by xiaobenpu
[基金申请] 有没有社科的同志们 +13 lfd0217 2022-08-18 16/800 2022-08-18 18:16 by hanwanqu
[硕博家园] 这样的学生,大家是怎么看待的? +45 mountain022 2022-08-15 72/3600 2022-08-18 18:03 by 快乐的123
[基金申请] 基金系统中工作提醒下面状态有变化,是不是就是中了? +40 sunnylover 2022-08-18 42/2100 2022-08-18 16:31 by huxinkun
[基金申请] 咨询了一下客服 +6 无情的雨2011 2022-08-18 6/300 2022-08-18 11:17 by luck036
[基金申请] 明天发榜 +19 三无人员求温 2022-08-17 23/1150 2022-08-18 00:19 by lixhxhxh
[基金申请] 快抑郁了 +14 yuyin1233 2022-08-16 15/750 2022-08-18 00:15 by 阿涛加油!
[基金申请] 现在有没有跟我一样在守2022国自然结果的? +33 黑白渡口 2022-08-15 44/2200 2022-08-17 20:17 by 张春生
[基金申请] 目前有已有确切消息的大佬们,请问你们对外合作能查到了吗? +18 lufeng2008 2022-08-17 23/1150 2022-08-17 16:27 by hurricaneyyy
[基金申请] 基金委网站这会进不去了,页面空白。 +9 ytangky 2022-08-17 9/450 2022-08-17 16:07 by libaozhang
[论文投稿] 用一种新方法合成了气凝胶,并研究了其光催化性能,哪个期刊好,大侠推荐下,谢谢 75+3 shijichao001 2022-08-15 15/750 2022-08-17 07:57 by MX.Jia
[考博] 博士申请 +3 栈诺神 2022-08-16 3/150 2022-08-17 07:46 by Appl-Phys
[基金申请] 左下眼皮经常跳,快一个月,是咋回事啊 +25 奥特馒 2022-08-16 26/1300 2022-08-16 23:55 by Dylan~
[基金申请] 基金什么时候放榜?看这里 +13 ytangky 2022-08-16 16/800 2022-08-16 20:21 by 赶快毕业吧
[基金申请] 大家的现在还是fs01或fs02? +20 lxy3103 2022-08-13 27/1350 2022-08-15 15:55 by hanfeng86
[教师之家] 深度学习 机器学习 指导 +3 sugarmei 2022-08-13 4/200 2022-08-15 07:32 by av470463442
[找工作] 还有不坑的学校吗? +13 菜鸟夭夭 2022-08-12 13/650 2022-08-15 00:42 by shenqi2
[基金申请] 重大发现:KYZY阅读量 +10 tswl 2022-08-14 16/800 2022-08-14 22:20 by tswl
[公派出国] +6 taotaol 2022-08-11 12/600 2022-08-12 14:14 by misterfeng
信息提示
请填处理意见