| 查看: 2747 | 回复: 7 | ||||
[交流]
请教organic letter 如何申诉？
|
|
请教各位高手, 稿件被拒，但是觉得拒的不合理，如何进行organic letter 申诉？在什么条件下可以申诉？申诉应该注意那些问题？ [ Last edited by 小皮憨妮8692 on 2011-1-16 at 15:50 ] |
回复此楼» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 淘帖 |
» 猜你喜欢
27届辽宁大学应届毕业生申博
已经有3人回复
-
关于如何从代码看上不上会
已经有23人回复
-
生命口会评
已经有5人回复
-
大龄残疾硕士的一点执念
已经有25人回复
-
今年E04面上
已经有22人回复
-
chemdraw
已经有6人回复
-
祈祷青基必中
已经有10人回复
-
b口会评
已经有6人回复
-
信息学部会评时间
已经有3人回复
-
在职考研
已经有7人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 请教大侠们：cover letter里面能不能有new novel 这样的字眼？
已经有4人回复
- 请问投Organic Letter 难度大不大？
已经有13人回复
- catalysis letter 拒稿后能申诉么？
已经有5人回复
- 请教communication，letter的区别
已经有6人回复
- 第一次投稿SCI收到的Decision Letter，另请教问题一个
已经有11人回复
- 【其他】请教如何请老师发recommend letter
已经有4人回复
- 《Organic Letter》投稿过程 by liangdawei
已经有5人回复
- paper给编辑reject，请教申诉
已经有27人回复
- 请教View Letter问题
已经有4人回复
- 如何增加Appeal的成功率！--文章被拒申诉成功的见解
已经有59人回复
» 抢金币啦！回帖就可以得到:
-
实验室技术孵化和中试技术转让
+1/1970
-
90年 河北 回族女生 在京 诚征男友
+1/615
-
坐标北京，女找男，也许我的标题更长你就更容易点进来！！
+1/153
-
祈福面上能中
+4/104
-
Monash University, 低碳冶金建模方向博士生招生(3-6名)，位置开放至2028年12月31号 [
+1/32
-
上海交通大学化工学院邱惠斌教授课题组招募科研助理、交流生
+1/30
-
【招聘】河南大学未来技术学院（量子信息）诚聘海内外英才
+1/30
-
北京理工大学长三角研究院（嘉兴）先进材料与智能装备团队 招聘
+1/29
-
回首往事
+1/23
-
华南理工大学电力学院雪映教授招收博士生（2027年秋季入学）
+2/22
-
同济大学化学科学与工程学院李本浩团队欢迎科研助理/硕士生/博士/博士后加入！
+1/14
-
中山大学孙逸仙纪念医院招收科研博士后
+1/13
-
圣路易斯华盛顿大学管建均教授课题组招聘博士后（2名）
+1/5
-
吉布斯自用能变、平衡常数、活度/分压计算
+1/3
-
圣路易斯华盛顿大学管建均教授课题组招聘博士后（2名）
+1/3
-
诚聘智慧农业方向博士教师
+1/3
-
北理工集成电路杰青团队 | 诚招科助理
+1/2
-
量子化学软件开发工程师-深圳
+1/2
-
圣路易斯华盛顿大学管建均教授课题组招聘博士后（2名）
+1/2
-
科研测试平台求助
+1/1
2楼2011-01-16 18:25:37
3楼2011-01-16 19:16:28
4楼2011-01-16 19:39:52
小皮憨妮8692(金币+5): 2011-01-16 21:53:20
|
[quote]Originally posted by 小皮憨妮8692 at 2011-01-16 12:16:28: 想跟您问下您有没有过申诉经历？我是新手，不是很懂。要不要一一的回复审稿人的意见？原稿件中要不要修改，比如说要加入的数据，或者是语法或格式的修改这样的？多谢！如果方便的话，能不能给我发份申诉信?十分 ... [/q 我没有申述过！ 给你一些模板吧，谨慎使用： Dear Editor Thank you and the reviewers very much for your helpful and kindly comments on our manuscript titled "…" . However, we think that your decision on refusing publication of this work in your journal is cursory, inappropriate and disappointing. At first, this work has its important practice significance and application values in … Unfortunately, …. We carried out this work in order to … Second, Journal of … as the first-rate journal in … should accept the publication of the important work in this journal. … Third, this work related to … is within the scope of this journal. We believe that this paper is suitable for the journal, because the Journal publishes research results dealing with… with a focus on original research representing complete studies, rather than incremental studies, and the topics covered include …, in particular, it covers … In a word, we mightily ask you to reconsider the publication of this work in your journal, and hope that you can make a positive decision which is beneficial to…in the world and can improve the quality of the manuscript according to the comments of the reviewers. With best wishes, Sincerely， … 作者: zhxd86 发布日期: 2008-10-27 Dear editor: Author would like to thank reviewing the manuscript by referee. Indded, some unnecessary spelling error is existed, and author feel embarrassed. This can due to careless omission and poor english. However,auther feel that the revised chance should be given for improving the manusript, because author conceive that the paper quality is not so bad. Author has read the suggestions from the reviewer, and conceive that the paper can be revised as following: 1.The more clear figure. 2.Improving the english. 3.The more calculated details. 4.Rewriten the Abstract and Conclusions. Author hope that the editor can give the revised chance,and give some appropriate tolerance for the young and non-native author. After all, the most important is paper quality. Meanwhile, author suggest that the e-mail should also be sent to reviewer. Thank your very much. Best Regards 作者: woodbeing 发布日期: 2008-10-27 偶最近自己写的，申述是成功了。但文章还在审稿中。。。 Dear editor, This mail comes to request a chance for reconsidering our manuscript (No. XXX) submitted to the Journal of Applied Physics. "Name of your manuscript" (No. XXX) Our manuscript can be roughly divided into two parts, XX and XX, respectively. The first part, as evaluated by the referee, "is a worthwhile effort". For the second part, the referee pointed out three questions on the completeness of the physical explanation of our data. As to the three questions, we admit that one or two are indeed neglected by us in the original manuscript and following the referee's advice we have made some substantial revisions. After the revisions, we are sure, we have well handled all the three questions in the report and the referee will be ready to accept the new manuscript. The recommendation of the original manuscript from the referee is "Major Revision". Besides, at the end of the report his/her thinks "After that (address the three questions) the revised manuscript can be reviewed again to determine its suitability for publication." Together with the positive evaluation of the first part of our manuscript, all of these deliver us the information that the referee is expecting our revised manuscript. Thus, we ask for an new evaluation from the original referee for the revised version. We are very confident of the quality of the new manuscript and believe that it now meets the standard of the Journal of Applied Physics. Please note that the editor has rejected our original manuscript and the online submission for revised version does not show up. If you are willing to take our request and send our revised version to the original referee, please tell us how to submit the revised version. Dear Editor, As the corresponding author, I received an e-mail which informed me that our manuscript (ID xxxxxxx) has been rejected. A referee’s report, as a standard procedure, has been attached to it. I have not the slightest grudge against the rejection. However, the referee’s report is quite unconvincing, or, if I may say, somewhat irresponsible. I understand that Inorganic Chemistry is an honorable organization which has a distinct reputation of being most conscientious toward all the submissions around the world. Those careless remarks in the report might jeopardize the good image which Inorganic Chemistry has been well upholding. So I consider it a self-imposed obligation to point it out. Just for the sake of argument, please allow me to cite the second referee's report below. Quote: (1)xxxx (2)xxxxx .................. There are mainly 3 arguments against our manuscript. (1)xxxxx (2)xxxx ...... It’s absurd for the referee to accuse us for the error we are striving to correct, and it’s also narrow-minded for him to deny any other theories that he hasn’t met or could not comprehend. So, I’m not content with the remarks this referee made. Since I haven’t found a second referee who can provide some potent opinions, I am hereby appealing for reconsideration. Please appoint us a new unbiased referee. Thank you very much for your patience and understanding. |
5楼2011-01-16 19:43:48
6楼2011-01-16 19:44:37
7楼2011-01-16 22:12:24
8楼2011-01-16 22:30:22