关于Scientific Reports争论，可以停了。（人家期刊本身就定位好了-垃圾回收站）
以下为引用：
其实评价该期刊不应该以是否收费来做标准，如 Nature Comm. 更高的收费，PRL也要$700一篇。对于SR，主要的诟病在于其评审的条款：
主要有两条：
1. Referees are asked not to make a judgement on the paper's importance；
2. Scientific Reports, unlike other journals published by Nature Publishing Group, does not, therefore, require an advance within a given field, and there is no requirement for novelty or broad interest.
其实没什么可吵的，自己的文章怎么样，需要人家来评价，那就拿出引用数即可。
以下是摘自评审邮件的信息：
To be considered for publication in Scientific Reports, a paper should be technically sound. Technical soundness refers to both methods and analysis, i.e. the methods must be appropriate and properly conducted, and the conclusions drawn must be fully supported by the data. Referees are asked not to make a judgement on the paper's importance - we ask the scientific community to make this judgement themselves post-publication.
Scientific Reports, unlike other journals published by Nature Publishing Group, does not, therefore, require an advance within a given field, and there is no requirement for novelty or broad interest.
返回小木虫查看更多
京公网安备 11010802022153号
..
你们继续讨论：
引自akuge:
To be considered for publication in Scientific Reports, a paper should be technically sound. Technical soundness refers to both methods and analysis, i.e. the methods must be appropriate and properly conducted, and the conclusions drawn must be fully supported by the data. Referees are asked not to make a judgement on the paper's importance - we ask the scientific community to make this judgement themselves post-publication.
针对这段话的理解，恰恰体现了这本期刊的可贵之处，我们在学术研究中，经常遇见一些保守的蛮横的学术权威，阻挡青年人的进步，他们因为自己已经取得学术地位，因此容不得对他们学术理论和成果的挑战者出现，将对于文章重要性价值的判断权，交给这批审阅人去处理，结果是，只容许一家之言或其学派的文章发表，而将反对派死死掐住，我们很多人在成长期都深有体会，并深受其害，然后等自己长大了，再去掐其它挑战者，这是多年学术圈中的炎黄周期律。我们很欣慰，SR意识到了这一点，并为一些能够取得突破的文章提供了发表阵地，将文章评判权，交给学术圈去判断，也就是引用率，和国际认可程度，这不是很好的吗？从这角度来说，SR取消审阅人文章重要性评判权，不仅不是期刊弱的表现，相反，是这一期刊优于其它保守期刊的重大优势，
好
支持
看了这么多，还是楼主这个帖子最有技术含量，还原了本质
看了这么多，还是楼主这个帖子最有技术含量，还原了本质