应《网络安全法》要求，自2017年10月1日起，未进行实名认证将不得使用互联网跟帖服务。为保障您的帐号能够正常使用，请尽快对帐号进行手机号验证，感谢您的理解与支持！

24小时热门版块排行榜    

小木虫论坛-学术科研互动平台 » 学术交流区 » 论文投稿 » 投稿求助 » Analtica Chimica Acta的editor两次叫重投，怪哉
41/1返回列表
查看: 1049  |  回复: 3
只看楼主 @他人 存档 新回复提醒 (忽略) 收藏    在APP中查看

nakerunner

金虫 (小有名气)

[求助] Analtica Chimica Acta的editor两次叫重投，怪哉

前段时间投了Analtica Chimica Acta一篇，三个reviewers，其中一个拒绝，理由是创新性不足。其余两个大修。于是大修哉，后面两个接受，但是第一个reviewer依然拒绝，说里面问题很多，列出了30多个问题，并且有的问题我觉得他的意见并不正确，最后editor决策不下，只好给rejected了。但是建议重投（具体内容见下）
       重投后，本以为会还reviewer的，结果只是editor换了，但是还是到原来那个reviewer那里，并另外加了一个reviewer，审稿1个月，Reviews required completed 持续了15天，当时猜测是reviewer意见不一致。最终果不其然，editor再次rejected了，并且说文章按照reviewer意见修改后可以发表，建议重投。两个reviwer一个小修，原来那个reviewer仍然拒绝，还说我没有完全按照他的要求改，我想的是当时要重投，就没必要完全按照point-to-point改了。
       现在的问题是：我是否需要修改后重投，如果重投，是否还是原来那个据我那个reviewer审稿，如果还是那个，估计我的文章凶多吉少。
       因为editor没有要求期限，能否先投别的杂志试一下，如果中了就算了，不中再按照reviewer意见改了重投？
       现在附上两次editor意见：
第一次:
Dear Dr......,

On behalf of the editor handling your manuscript, I am writing to you in reference to your manuscript entitled:........

On the basis of the review(s) appended below, we regret that your manuscript cannot be accepted in its present form for publication in ACA. However, it is the opinion of the Editor that there is potential merit in the work described and that a thorough consideration of the reviewer comments might result in a publishable paper. We would therefore be willing to consider a new manuscript that describes this work. Since this will be considered as a new submittal, it can be submitted online at any future time. In such a case, in the cover letter please address the prior comments of the reviewers, detailing what changes have been made.
Thank you for your interest in Analytica Chimica Acta.
Yours sincerely,

Tanya Devanny
Journal Manager
Analytica Chimica Acta
E-mail: aca@elsevier.com     

Reviewers' comments:

Dear Dr ......,
As you will see below the revised version of your manuscript still has numerous shortcomings not the least of which is a problem with novelty. Thus I must regrettably decline its publication. If you intend to re-submit this study I would strongly urge you to consider all of the comments made by the reviewers especially those related to novelty and language quality.
Sincerely
Neil Barnett
Editor

Reviewer #2: I thank the authors for their appreciation concerning the comments made. However, the revised manuscript has still many problems and it is not in a condition appropriate for publication. Some parts have been improved in terms of language. Others have been made very confusing or do not make sense (e.g., the description of the antibody coupling to ....). Concerning the novelty of the work I cannot agree with the authors' opinion. They wrote an extended response to the objection which, however, was not included in the manuscript to support its novelty. The references that they used in their answer are quite old (most of them dated back to 1985). Several problems related to ....., mentioned in these papers, have been solved or surpassed over the years. In any case, as I wrote above the manuscript is not appropriate for publication.  Possibly, it could be decreased considerably in length and be presented as a technical note, focusing solely on the two-step assay.
Below I have listed some of my objections and questions that could be taken into account in case that the authors would like to revise it.

第二次：
Dear Dr. ........,

On behalf of the editor handling your manuscript, I am writing to you in reference to your manuscript entitled:........

On the basis of the review(s) appended below, we regret that your manuscript cannot be accepted in its present form for publication in ACA. However, it is the opinion of the Editor that there is potential merit in the work described and that a thorough consideration of the reviewer comments might result in a publishable paper. We would therefore be willing to consider a new manuscript that describes this work. Since this will be considered as a new submittal, it can be submitted online at any future time. In such a case, in the cover letter please address the prior comments of the reviewers, detailing what changes have been made.
Thank you for your interest in Analytica Chimica Acta.

Yours sincerely,

Tanya Devanny
Journal Manager
Analytica Chimica Acta
E-mail: aca@elsevier.com     

Reviewers' comments:

Dear Dr .......,
Clearly Reviewer #2 is still unsupportive of your manuscript an my reading of it backs up his criticisms.
Sincerely
Editor

Reviewer #1: The manuscript describes two approaches for the detection of C-reactive protein (CRP) using antibody conjugated quantum dots. The approaches are sensitive and selective. Practicality of the two approaches is no doubt.
1.  .......
2.  .......
3. ........

Reviewer #2: In this (third) revised version of the manuscript the authors replied to 21 out of 31 specific comments that I had made. In addition, they did not responded at all to the introductory statement of the review and they did not provide a response letter listing the exact changes they made in response to the review. I consider that the manuscript has considerable problems, especially in the methods description and again the right axis of Fig.2B is wrong. Therefore I suggest rejection of the manuscript.

[ Last edited by nakerunner on 2011-5-30 at 23:42 ]
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
1楼 2011-05-30 23:24:30
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

nakerunner

金虫 (小有名气)
Nobody help?
回复此楼
2楼2011-05-31 21:10:14
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

yensh

金虫 (文坛精英)

优秀版主

【答案】应助回帖

nakerunner(金币+8): 好的建议。谢谢 2011-06-03 13:54:36
nakerunner(金币+5): 2011-06-09 11:11:12
ACA应该还算不错的期刊

建议您认真修改，第二次rejection就是跟您不重视有关

我个人认为无论是改投还是重投，都要好好回复那个审稿人的意见。

否则很可能是个悲剧。

也不要抱有投其它期刊不中再投ACA的想法，分析圈子很小，

如果还回到那个审稿人手里，必定是rejection

与其逃避还不如勇敢面对这些问题！

最后祝好运！
赞一下 回复此楼
ID已经更换，此ID作废
3楼2011-05-31 21:20:28
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

对对^-^

银虫 (初入文坛)
亲，我跟你遇到了同样的情况，您的文章后来重了吗？还是改投其他杂志了呢？
赞一下 回复此楼
4楼2019-04-02 20:34:02
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 nakerunner 的主题更新
41/1返回列表
普通表情 龙 兔 虎 猫
信息提示
关闭
请填处理意见
关闭