| 查看: 456 | 回复: 2 | ||
| 当前主题已经存档。 | ||
hanwu5铁杆木虫 (小有名气)
|
[交流]
把意见弄上来，那文章投的实在太不应该
|
|
|
审稿碰上一篇让人很无语的文章。 国内的，本来想帮细细看看，忙了一早上外加昨晚上1h，实在看不下去了。 是被审稿过、修改重投之后，重投的稿件存在很多最为基本的的语法错误，实在太不应该。 有虫友说，晒出来不好，甚至违反相关法律，帖子很快就被删了。我倒是没有什么意见，本来就觉得晒出来不是很好，只是希望大家以后注意。 但是我还是把相关的问题列出来，希望大家引以为戒！下面的内容里面，汉字部分是现在加上的。 Although it is pointed out that the there are “grammatical errors and instances of badly worded/constructed sentences” in the manuscript and the author has replied “We have polished the use of English throughout the WHOLE paper carefully, the quality of use of language have been improved”, it is still regretfully to find a great number of grammatical errors and instances of badly worded/constructed sentences in the manuscript, such as 1) In the “Experiment materials” Para. 1 Line 5-6: “technology. and”; ——句点后面的单词，词首是小写。 2) In the “2.2 Preparation technology” Para. 2 Line 9: “furnace.,and”; ——句点和逗号同时使用。中文习惯？弱弱的问一句：中文有这样的表达吗？ 3) In the “4.1 Composition of alloys” Para. 1 Line 2: “2#. it” ——同1） 4) In the “4.2 Microstructure” Para. 3 Line 3-4: “phase, Therefore, The”; ——两个连着的逗号，后面的单词全部是词首大写。对比前面的句点后的单词词首小写。 5) The “Conclusions” is shown as “conclusions”, and so forth. ——这个不应该。那么大的加粗的字。 The number of alike errors is roughly counted to be at lest twenty. ——粗粗一数，20处。 ——这样的低级错误，很让人无语，这样的稿子居然也投出去了！即使是初稿，写成这样，也太那个了。是不是完全没有经过老板的同意就投稿了？看来，很多老师坚持学生投稿之前，把文章给老师看，是很有道理的。要是弄成这样，太没面子了。 Furthermore, it is very easy to find that the second reference is numbered as 21st ([21]) and the format of the references is obviously not well arranged and unified, such as “A. 2001. 302: 37-45” in end of the second reference. ——这个很无语，若说前面那些文字和语法性的错误，是编辑没时间细看。参考文献，一共才6篇，不仅没有对齐，还将【2】弄成【21】，怎么也说不过去。这是编辑的不负责任！这是一篇来自“材料科学与工程A”Materials Science and Engineering A这个杂志的文章。IF1.806，难怪一顿猛投！ Moreover, in the “Acknowledgements” Line 1, it is unknown what the word “Mrt” is referring to. ——感谢自己的导师，居然将 Mr. 写成 Mrt，不知道他的导师看了之后作何感想。 Additionally, there are some other aspects which are advised to be improved. 1, The manuscript lacks sufficient data. No evidence is applied to prove the existence of the compounds in the “4.2 Microstructure”. ——无凭无据！ 2, There are many conceptions that are not clearly stated in the manuscript, for example, both the “master alloy” and “bar-shape mould” in “Preparation technology” Para.2 Line 8. ——横空出世！ 3, The parameters of tensile tests are not mentioned. 4, There are “as-extruded alloys” in the “Results”. However, both these alloys and the extrusion parameters are not mentioned in the “Experiments”. ——横空出世！ 5, The expressions such as “fig.1” and “table 1”, and so forth, should be changed to expressions such as “Fig. 1” and “Table 1”. The manuscript is strongly advised to be rewritten and resubmitted. ——有虫友说，这个意见太严格，并且没有说到点子上，没有拒稿的充足理由。 首先这不是直接的拒稿，那个一般会说文章没有新颖性之类。那就是说这个文章所涉及的内容根本就不应该做，岂不是更加打击作者的积极性？！ 再者，我觉得，对这样的文章，这是一个很不错的说法了，作者还可以修改之后再投。要是说，实验根本就不该做、文章根本就不应该写。大家都是出来混的，做点实验，写个文章不容易。你认为作者辛辛苦苦做了那么多东西，是为了你告诉他：你做的一切都是无用功！ [ Last edited by hanwu5 on 2010-1-21 at 19:50 ] |
回复此楼
2楼2010-01-20 17:05:01
smilerobin
至尊木虫 (文坛精英)
- 应助: 87 (初中生)
- 金币: 24710.3
- 散金: 600
- 红花: 44
- 帖子: 10734
- 在线: 800.1小时
- 虫号: 771843
- 注册: 2009-05-16
- 专业: 自然地理学
。没什么新意，直接拒掉算了
3楼2010-01-20 17:55:01
