24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (4628)
>导师招生 (340)
>文献求助 (340)
>休闲灌水 (219)
>论文投稿 (200)
>虫友互识 (136)
>博后之家 (125)
>考博 (118)
>学术会议 (102)
>教师之家 (52)
>找工作 (47)
>硕博家园 (43)
>公派出国 (42)
>招聘信息布告栏 (41)
>绿色求助(高悬赏) (37)
>考研 (35)

返回列表

【有奖交流】积极回复本帖子，参与交流，就有机会分得作者 ZQXMchong 的 33 个金币，回帖就立即获得 1 个金币，每人有 1 次机会

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

ZQXMchong

银虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 401.7
帖子: 91
在线: 48.9小时
虫号: 22996948

[交流] 一小修一拒稿，有必要修改重投吗？

最近投了一篇文章到某期刊上，好不容易送审意见回来了，结果两个外审，一个意见是小修，一个是拒稿，编辑（和我老板关系还不错）无情的拒了，请问如果按照外审意见修改还有重投的希望吗？因为如果重投，可能老板感觉再联系那个熟人编辑没面子，因此最好是大概率能搞定时，这样做意义才大一些，老板才愿意！
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
外审一的意见是小修接受，他先是把文章夸一番，之后就是给出了两个可以改进的地方，主要就是加一个指标为了评估毒性，还有就是有一个实验现象，她想了解一下有没有可能是因为另一个小原因导致的，补充一下可能更完整，这两个都很容易解决。

外审二是拒稿，也是先大体评价了一下文章说很有趣，但是后面说文章也有大漏洞，主要就是一个机理的解释，他觉得结论还需要再验证，这个问题感觉很容易解决，因为我们有一些突变体，很容易回答。第二个问题是质疑我们在文章中吹嘘的应用潜能，然后觉得在我们文章中的应用的模型下很难让人感觉到有“应用潜能”但倒是提供了一些改进的建议，用另外的模型说明应用前景也许可以（不得不说大牛的建议的确不错，感觉真心对），这个估计也可以补。其余的问题是一些小问题，包括一些描述不到位的，还有一个他理解错误的地方（这个理解错误导致在4项指标打分中，有一项他觉得因为这个他认为错的错误而原本是该给 high 的仅仅只有中等，另一个是应用性给了中等，其余都是high) 。

而以上这些建议个人觉得应该都是可以改的。但是编辑直接拒稿了。

编辑回信：
Dear xx,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to be considered for publication in xx and I hope that you and your family are staying healthy in this time. This decision was a tough one, as the referees, who are experts in XX, XX, and XX, and are generally big supporters of your work, are split and have serious reservations about the submission in its current form. Based on the attached reviewers’ comments and my own reading of the work, I regret to inform you that we are unable to accept your manuscript for publication and are offering transfer to XX, another top journal in our field.
The translational aspects of the work were questioned by both referees, with even the positive referee requesting additional animal experiments whereas the negative referee did not evaluate the results as having sufficient selectivity for potential therapeutic intervention. Moreover, they questioned a well-defined mechanism of action relative to your previous work (指的是毒性问题，还是应用性被质疑）. I think this is an interesting chemical biology story, but at xx， we are limited to publishing 200 papers a year and have to cover all fields in that limited number, so each study has to garner a high bar of enthusiasm with external referees. For context, each editor is only accepting 2-3 submissions per month and we receive new submissions daily.
At xx we aim to cover the most significant findings, both in terms of novelty and broad relevance, spanning all areas. As fellow academics, we are cognizant of the time and effort to review and revise manuscripts, so papers that are unlikely to pass this high bar, although they may be of good quality, must be turned away. For this reason, xx will likely reject a high proportion of articles submitted. This decision is not a judgment of the quality of the data or scholarship of the work, but merely reflects our desire to publish only the most influential research and allied fields. Although we regret that a positive recommendation cannot be made in this instance, we do welcome your future submissions to and support of XX.
However, xx is pleased to provide an opportunity to submit your manuscript to xx. The editors at xx encourage you to consider the recommendations received from xx. To have your manuscript files and information copied to a new submission for xx, please see the information below. The editors will evaluate your revised manuscript from a fresh perspective. Please note that submitting your manuscript to the xx does not guarantee acceptance.
Thank you again for your interest in xx. Again, I'm sorry that this current submission wasn't a good match for the journal, but I hope that you can see we give each manuscript serious consideration and try to give transparent feedback on how a decision is made and that you'll consider xx again in the future. We are also happy to receive presubmission inquiries as well.

回复此楼