24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前主题已经存档。

yuyongtao

应助: (幼儿园)
在线:
虫号: 84212

[交流] 【原创】SCI论文修稿的实例分析

第一篇SCI论文发在本专业影响因子1.8的国际杂志上，从投稿到修稿到最后接收用了9个月时间。这里以实例的形式对我修稿的过程作个分析，希望对打算投稿、修稿的虫虫们有所帮助。

View Letter

Date: 29 Apr 2005
To:XXX@XXX.edu.cn
From: XXX@elsevier.com
Subject: PALAEO3247 Editor decision - revise

Dear Dr XXX,

I can now inform you that the reviewers and editor have evaluated the manuscript "XXX" (Dr XXX). As you will see from the comments below, publication in its present form is not recommended, and major revision is being requested.（如果把握好，修稿应该很有戏）

Please consider the reviews to see if revision would be feasible. Should you wish to resubmit you should explain how and where each point of the reviewers' comments has been incorporated. For this, use submission item "Revision Notes" when uploading your revision. Also, indicate the changes in an annotated version of the revised manuscript (submission item "Revision, changes marked"

. Should you disagree with any part of the reviews, please explain why. To facilitate further review, add line numbers in the text of your manuscript.

Please strictly follow the formatting requirements as presented in the Guide for Authors.

Any new version should be returned within four months, as any resubmittal received after this time may, at the editor's discretion, be considered as a new paper.

To submit a revision, go to http://ees.elsevier.com/palaeo/ and log in as an author.  You will find your submission record under Submission(s) Needing Revision.

When resubmitting, please present any figures, tables etc. as separate files. See the Artwork Guidelines on the home page right menu for further file naming conventions, referencing and format issues.

I hope that you will find the comments to be of use to you.

Kind regards,
For the Editor,

Denise Woon A Tai, Journal Editor Assistant
XXX JOURNAL

...........................................................
COMMENTS FROM EDITORS AND REVIEWERS

Editor's comments

This paper has been thoroughly and expertly reviewed and the reviewers provide an excellent basis for paper revision. The study certainly provides very useful detail on XXX. As stated by the reviewers, though, further examination of XXX is required. The critical feature of the paper is XXX. It is considered that there are insufficient XXX to provide a robust XXX and either more XXX are obtained to firm up XXX or comparisons are made more tentative. With this latter option, spectral analysis can not be supported. As it stands, there appear to be contradictions. For example, XXX…. Considering that further, more refined, research is planned, the second option seems the one to opt for, for this paper.

Reviewer #1: The authors XXX et al. provide partly new and quite important results about XXX. By comparing XXX and XXX the authors discuss comprehensively evidences for XXX. Although the interrelation between XXX and XXX in that region is very likely, the authors cannot provide hard evidences to quantify and thus distinguish between both influences. This part of their explanations as well as the possible influence of XXX and XXX dynamics is still tentative, as mentioned by the authors. However, they find fairly established arguments for linkages to XXX and argue that there is XXX, which seem to be well preserved in both sections. The authors conclude that there might be XXX….
On the other hand it is sometimes not understandable, why the authors do not discuss those parts which obviously mismatch XXX recorded in XXX and elsewhere. Neither delays of several hundred years between XXX nor shortages of single events are discussed. Their only arguments are that "XXX" (see abstract). This is not very convincing taking into account that only XXX have been investigated while one of it has a very poor dating control. Therefore, the authors mainly keep in a more or less general time range of XXX. In this respect they provide a very good comparison with previously published data. Data from XXX at least provide much more details not yet discussed.

However, the manuscript is well organized, very well written in proper English and worth to be published in XXX in general. But unfortunately there are some open questions and some obscurities which need to be solved before publication:

接下来，第一位评审人就具体问题提出了一些看法，因篇幅所限，在此归纳如下：
1）数据解释还不够全面，没有很好地考虑反面的证据，将其融合到对某个科学问题的探讨中；
2）图表的标注中出现的一些模糊不清的地方，如图注文字与图内容之间存在不一致；
3）手稿中存在的一些语言错误；
4）有些参考文献相关性不强，可要可不要的就一定不要，只保留那些绝对需要且有利于论证的文献。

Reviewer #2: An interesting paper which can be published in Palaeo3 with minor-to-major scale modifications. (括号内为针对修改意见作出的回应)

1.    There should be a section at the beginning of the Results/Discussion section which outlines the bases for their interpretation of XXX. (We added a paragraph at the beginning of the Results/Discussion section. It highlights the necessary basis on which XXX were interpreted. Specific changes please see line No.)
2.    A clearer and more detailed link needs to be made between the properties of XXX and XXX. (We revised the manuscript to strengthen the interpretations of XXX used, and to provide a clearer and detailed link between the properties of XXX and XXX. Particular revisions are marked in the manuscript with line numbers for reference. ……)
3.    As a general comment, I am impressed with the comprehensive attempt to integrate the results from the two sections with XXX from areas outside China. However, all of the suggested correlations with other sites (both within and outside China), unfortunately rest on a very small number of XXX - and this is the major weakness of the paper. I would suggest that the authors need to be much more tentative about their correlations. A related point is that in my opinion the quality of XXX just does not support the spectral analysis and I suggest that this section (and the spectral plots) be removed from the paper. (We admit and agree with the reviewer’s comment on the poor XXX controls for XXX. This is because we cannot obtain more material for conventional radiocarbon dating. We carefully chose XXX samples for dating but unfortunately they failed to yield any useful data. We had no choice but to use this data for analyses. Resources permitted, we hope to XXX (the abundant XXX provide excellent basis for a much better chronological constraint on our present data). Although this problem renders our subsequent correlations more or less tentative, the correlations themselves seem to partly show the validity of such a XXX. These correlations may help provide useful reference to further discussions on the role of XXX in responses to globally interlinked climate changes. In addition, we understand and agree that spectral analysis fall senseless without a strong support of chronology. Therefore, we pull it out of the manuscript. )
4.    There are several grammatical glitches that I have corrected in the pdf, and my copy should be returned to the authors. (We have corrected all inappropriate phrasings and misspellings according to the reviewer’s suggestions. )
总体感觉：该文从实验到写作由我一手操刀，老板不懂英语（他学俄语），因此我初稿写成后找了系里一个长江学者帮看了看，他觉得语言不错，结构还需调整。我根据他的意见修成二稿，然后自己proofread，定稿。因为自己一直担心的问题被Reviwer#2提出（本文最大的弱点），但本人没钱做进一步的实验补充重要数据，找老板，他也不表态。因此，充分地承认自己研究的不足，提出下一步可能的解决方案，礼貌地对待审稿人的意见并作出不卑不亢的修改，强调本研究有限度的重要意义，这些是我认为该文章能发表的关键。当然，如果可能，最好把实验完善，这可能在现阶段不取决于我们这些穷学生，而取决于老板是否愿意掏钱。但愿大家都有个好老板。

回复此楼