24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

大漠西游

新虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 211.4
散金: 750
红花: 13
帖子: 129
在线: 66.2小时
虫号: 4119648
注册: 2015-10-05
专业: 胶体与界面化学

[交流] Scientific Reports的审稿要求,5400个编辑，今年发文预计超2万已有21人参与

大家对此垃圾期刊警惕，现有编辑人数超过5400人，国内的近800人。身边很多博后是编辑。
https://www.nature.com/srep/about/editorial-board

2015年发表文章超过1万篇，2016年一月份发文接近2000篇，估计全年达到2.5万篇；影响因子泡沫会急速下降。这货就像是通货膨胀的一个奇葩。

接受了审稿邀请后，系统自动发来如下邮件：

Dear Dr XXX,

Thank you for agreeing to review the manuscript XXX.

Papers published in Scientific Reports should be technically sound and scientifically valid. i.e. the methods must be appropriate and properly conducted, and the conclusions drawn must be fully supported by the data presented.

Scientific Reports, unlike other journals published by Nature Publishing Group, does not assess papers based on perceived importance, significance or impact. Referees are not asked to make a judgement on the importance of the study - we ask the scientific community to make this judgement themselves post-publication.

The review form will rapidly allow you to provide feedback in the following areas:

- Is the paper technically sound?
- Are the claims convincing? If not, what further evidence is needed?
- Are the claims fully supported by the experimental data?
- Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature?
- If the manuscript is unacceptable in its present form, does the study seem sufficiently promising that the authors should be encouraged to consider a resubmission in the future?

In addition to answering the previous questions, you can provide further information as free-text, including comments that may answer the following:
- Is the manuscript clearly written? If not, how could it be made more accessible?
- Have the authors done themselves justice without overselling their claims?
- Have they been fair in their treatment of previous literature?
- Have they provided sufficient methodological detail that the experiments could be reproduced?
- Is the statistical analysis of the data sound?
- Are there any special ethical concerns arising from the use of animals or human subjects?

To access the manuscript, review form, and instructions please click on the link below.

...

回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

Stay hungry, stay foolish!

1楼 2016-03-03 07:13:16

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

garrisongao

版主 (著名写手)

应助: 659 (博士)
贵宾: 0.522
金币: 9077.8
散金: 6276
红花: 75
沙发: 13
帖子: 2823
在线: 1425.8小时
虫号: 1471645
注册: 2011-11-01
专业: 信息安全
管辖: 公派出国

★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖

引用回帖:

22楼: Originally posted by sclyeah at 2016-03-04 13:38:02
你不是说垃圾么？怎么现在改口说很一般了？垃圾和一般还是有差别的。都是搞科研的人，说话不严谨。你的领域一般就代表所有领域一般？把上面几万篇文章一起鄙视了？你是上帝？说它差，无非就是想显得自己水平高 ...

不要跟物理化学生物的讨论这个了,在他们学科, SR确实是垃圾.比SR高IF的期刊多了去了.其它好多学科根本没有一本能达到IF=5的期刊,即使是行业顶刊.
基本你看不屑于SR的都是上述学科,可以说大部分.这也是事实.在那些个领域,选择太多了.