24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (3280)
>虫友互识 (848)
>文献求助 (235)
>导师招生 (162)
>休闲灌水 (159)
>考博 (131)
>教师之家 (86)
>博后之家 (81)
>硕博家园 (80)
>找工作 (77)
>论文投稿 (75)
>论文道贺祈福 (67)
>基金申请 (65)
>考研 (57)
>公派出国 (51)
>招聘信息布告栏 (36)

返回列表

当前主题已经存档。

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

penghuabei

铁杆木虫 (职业作家)

应助: 60 (初中生)
金币: 1276
散金: 6811
红花: 13
帖子: 3116
在线: 2718.9小时
虫号: 696104
注册: 2009-02-04
专业: 金属非晶态、准晶和纳米晶

[交流] 一篇SCI，历时接近一年，四次投稿，三次被拒，最后接收!

我的一篇SCI经过了4次投稿，三次被拒，最后总算被接收了，其中的曲折已难以言语。不过这次投稿过程积累了许多经验，同时感谢小木虫上的虫虫们，记得有位虫虫说过：“一篇文章总有被接收的一天。”正是在这句话的鼓励下，我经历了接近一年的投稿，被拒，再投稿的反复过程。同时，经过这篇文章的锻炼，我觉得以后大家投稿其实可以多选择几个杂志作为后选，从影响因子高的投起，这一次我就这么干的。并且，就像许多前辈说过的，大修的文章只要认认真真根据审稿人的要求修改文章被接收的机会很大的。我这篇文章就是最好的一个例子。为了感谢小木虫及虫虫们，下面列出了投稿的全过程，希望对大家有帮助。

第一次投稿：

Journal of Colloid and Interface Science
2009年1月16日投稿
2009年2月5日据稿，连编辑这一关都没有过，下面附上拒信。

Thank you for submitting your article to the Journal of Colloid and Interface Science.

This manuscript has been received and reviewed by the editorial board.  Unfortunately, we regret to inform you that we are unable to publish it. Due to the high demand for space within the pages of this Journal, we must decline a portion of manuscripts with editorial review, allowing the authors to send their manuscript to another journal without delay. Such a decision is made by the board of editors when it appears that the manuscript is unlikely to succeed in the competition for the limited available space. The main aspects considered are: the originality and novelty of ideas put forward in the manuscript; the usual scope of the Journal; the likelihood that the manuscript would be of great interest to typical readers of the Journal, and particularly those working in the same general area of colloid and interface science; the degree to which the manuscript focuses on important new results, in view of the stringent page space limitations faced by scientific journals; and,the writing style, including English grammar and usage.

第二次投稿：

Surface Science
2009年2月5日投稿
2009年3月9日据稿，这一次找了审稿人了，审稿意见其实我认为完全应该在大修范围的，但是编辑还是据稿了，下面附上意见。

The reviewers have raised some serious points on your manuscript.

Accordingly, I regret to inform you that the manuscript is not accepted for publication in Surface Science. I thought that you would be interested in the comments of the referees, and I have pasted a copy of them below.

It is our policy to recommend to authors whose paper has not been accepted for publication that they consider another journal rather than provide Surface Science with a rebuttal. Should you wish to submit a new manuscript on a similar topic, please indicate several suggested referees and the reference number of the present manuscript in the Comments section of EES.

For your guidance, I append the reviewers' comments below.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

Yours sincerely,

C.T. Campbell
Editor-in-Chief
Surface Science

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: The authors report XX characterization of XXX on the surface of XXX nanoparticles. While this referee does not have any doubt in the technical correctness of the report, he cannot see why we should do XXXX. In other words, are there such critical differences in nanoparticle applications depending on the surfactant XXXX condition? This referee seriously doubts that.

2009年3月10日也是因为小木虫的原因，看上面提到可以跟编辑申述，于是我写了封邮件想让编辑给个机会。
2009年3月13日编辑还是据稿，下面附上编辑邮件的主体内容。我认为，如果编辑不喜欢你的文章，可以找很多理由的拒掉的。

I understand your request.  We decided to reject your paper not only because the referee did not appreciate it, but also (and mainly) because your paper is so poorly explained that the reader (myself included) cannot be exactly sure what you are trying to say in many places. Even the 1st two sentences of the Abstract are very poorly written. You need to write more clearly and explain more details.

Also, your arguments below about the importance of this centers around their behavior in liquid solution, but your FTIR measurements are in no liquid.  Are you sure the layer structure does not change between conditions?  You therefore also need to address this.

Finally you need to also explain early in the Introduction why this work is important, with references.

Sincerely,

Charles T. Campbell

第三次投稿

Surface and Coating Technology
2009年3月17日投稿
2009年3月31日据稿，原因很简单，不在杂志内容范围内。于是马上换期刊再投。
Your paper has been found to be outside the remit of Surface and Coatings Technology. Therefore, we are recommending submission to another journal dealing with nanoparticle preparation and processing.

With Regards,
Yves Pauleau
Editor
Surface and Coatings Technology

第四次投稿

Applied Surface Science
2009年4月1日投稿
2009年4月7日Robert L. Opila作为编辑并分配稿件号
2009年5月4日找到审稿人
2009年6月14日审稿意见返回，大修。由于审稿意见太多就不列出来了。
2009年8月11日大修完成投稿。
2009年8月19日同一个审稿人接手，开始审稿
2009年9月24日审稿返回，继续大修。根据审稿意见来看，本来我认为应该是小修的，但编辑还是放在了大修的范围内。下面附上部分的审稿意见。

Reviewer #1: I think the paper is appropriate in its revised form for publication in Applied Surface Science.  The reviewers have addressed all the points I raised in my initial review, and I think the manuscript is more understandable in its current form.  I have a few lingering questions/concerns I'd like them to address.

2009年10月15日编辑接手
2009年10月22日审稿人同意审稿
2009年11月26日接收，看到下面的意见其实我已经没有什么感觉了。

I am pleased to confirm that your paper has been accepted for publication in Applied Surface Science.
Comments from the Editor and Reviewers can be found below.
Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.

With kind regards,

Robert L. Opila
Editor
Applied Surface Science

Comments from the Editors and Reviewers:
good job addressing reviewer's suggestions.  thank you.

[ Last edited by nxssw on 2009-11-27 at 20:40 ]

回复此楼