| 查看: 3680 | 回复: 5 | |||
| 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 | |||
tea_gl9871铜虫 (正式写手)
|
[求助]
有没有虫友被拒稿后写过申诉信？急需指点一下！
|
||
|
求救各位虫友： 事情是这样，我的一篇英文文章4月初给了一个小修的意见，经过4个月反反复复的修改（之前的帖子中也提到，主要是字词和句子结构的问题）今天给了最终意见，竟然是reject！哭啊！我还指望这篇文章毕业！ 有几个地方要说明的是， 1，第一次给我小修意见的编辑非此次reject我的主编。 2，第一次3个审稿人中没有任何一个编辑质疑我的实验的方法和结论，只是主要对语法和句子结构提出修改意见。尤其有两个编辑都说写的很好，值得发表。而现在该主编说我的方法有一定问题。这。。。 3，在3次反复修改过程中，与我沟通的执行编辑前两天还说他认为可以接收了，结果主编。。。 4，是不是我拖得时间太长了对于一个小修来说? 5，请问有没有虫友有过类似经历，请有这样经历的虫友给我些指点该怎么办。 我刚起草了一份申诉信，准备直接对话reject的主编。这样可否，有希望挽回结果吗？ 求助！求助！金币全奉上，有这样申诉信模板的多金币感谢！ 拒稿信原文： Dear xxx I have received all the materials related to your submission for final evaluation. I have noticed that together with the Associate Editor you have been working hard to improve the manuscript. Unfortunately, following examination of all the documents and the manuscript itself, I would like to inform you with great regret that I have not found enough arguments to recommend this work for publication in xxx. xxx is aiming to provide new and important data which will constitute at least incremental increase in our knowledge. As you have mentioned in your work, the protocol for in vitro procedures for this plant species has been elaborated some time ago. The structural observations, although interesting and well done, are not enough to warrant publication of such work. They are descriptive and cannot be used for generation of conclusions which will give us a glimpse into the mechanisms of axillary bud formation also in plants. As for the second part of this work, i.e. isoenzyme analysis, I am sorry to tell this, but this type of analysis is also not advancing our knowledge. As it is not supported by any other kind of biochemical, or immunochemical analyses, the conclusions you are drawing with respect to proposed functions of those enzymes are completely speculative and not rooted in solid data. I have noticed that stil this work requires quite a lot of editorial work with respect to sentence construction, typographics, and syntax. Please note also that the term "isozyme" relates to different forms of the same enzyme. Thus you cannot use the singular form such as e.g. "AMY isozyme" as this is biologically irrelevant. Summarising, I would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work, but, with much regret, I have to reject it from further consideration. However, as the data are now nicely presented and relative well described, I do believe that you will publish them either in botanical journal or the one devoted to in vitro technology. With kind regards, |
回复此楼» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 纳米金 石墨烯 介孔硅 SERS 拉曼 |
» 猜你喜欢
295求调剂。一志愿报考郑州大学化学工艺学硕，总分295分
已经有4人回复
-
289求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
江苏省农科院招调剂1名
已经有4人回复
-
290分材料工程085601求调剂 数二英一
已经有3人回复
-
0856调剂
已经有7人回复
-
化工专硕348，一志愿985求调剂
已经有9人回复
-
0856化工专硕求调剂
已经有14人回复
-
282求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
诚招农业博士
已经有3人回复
-
材料学硕318求调剂
已经有9人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 投过IEEE的虫友请进来，万分感谢！
已经有14人回复
- 圣诞前一天文章莫名其妙被拒稿，申诉成功后今天戏剧接收
已经有231人回复
- 被拒了，想申诉呢，大家帮忙看看拒稿信，还有没有可能？
已经有13人回复
- 昨天催稿，今天收到回信，不懂什么意思，虫友帮忙看下~
已经有16人回复
- 使用过ODS柱的虫友们请进来指点一下，谢谢
已经有14人回复
- 虫友们给写一下 这些中英文杂志英文的缩写啊
已经有5人回复
- 请在SBB期刊有过投稿经验的朋友们进来指点一下!
已经有7人回复
- 论文被拒，怎样申诉
已经有21人回复
leimiao_hit
木虫之王 (文学泰斗)
小元
- SEPI: 7
- 应助: 1336 (讲师)
- 贵宾: 0.707
- 金币: 113735
- 散金: 12354
- 红花: 385
- 沙发: 888
- 帖子: 85000
- 在线: 6307.5小时
- 虫号: 1264338
- 注册: 2011-04-13
- 专业: 蔬菜学与瓜果学
【答案】应助回帖
tea_gl9871(金币+9): 但问题是最后拒我文章的这个主编所说的两个理由，在各审稿人的评审意见中根本没提到而且在历次修改中也没提到 2011-08-27 00:15:02
|
文章被拒之后的选择 - 申诉，重投，改投？ 很多新人会遇到这种问题，早就想发个贴，分享一下经验（本人被各种杂志拒过至少上百次，当然最后也发了数十篇）。 投稿被拒是经常的事，不必悲伤，马上着手下一步。实际上如果每次都被接收，也许是应该投到更高档次的杂志。这里只简单说一下被拒之后的选择吧。欢迎大家补充。 申诉：没有很大的原因（审稿人极不负责，或收到了错误的审稿报告-比如审稿人上传错了文件），没有必要申诉。申诉经常只是耽误时间，编辑也头痛（审稿人不好找，编辑一般要站在审稿人一边）。申诉的后果也是要等一段时间（可能很长，甚至有的编辑不理会申诉邮件，那你更难办），申诉不成功几率很大，即使成功了，也还是要修改重审（等于重投）。 重投：如果觉得文章适合这个杂志，可以修改重投，不必申诉。根据审稿人意见，修改重投。被拒的文章一般有大问题，应该做很大改动（贡献不足 - 要增加内容，语言问题 - 好好修改，等等）。不过有时从文章结构，着重点方面，做适当的修改，新的或原来的审稿人，都会认真考虑。 改投：改投其它杂志是最常见的事。但改投并不应该不做修改就换个杂志投，文章落到同一审稿人的情况很多，问题没有处理就改投给审稿人印象很不好。改投不一定什么都改，但要做适当的修改，突出适合新杂志的重点。当然，不是每次被拒，就只能投个低一档次的杂志。如果文章不错，被拒原因是内容不适合，那有时投同一级别，甚至更高的，都可以。 除了这三种选择，有时还要冷静一下，看看文章的质量和潜力够不够投杂志。不够的话，不要硬投，考虑一下是否先投个会议。或许放一放，先做点别的工作或研究，过一段时间在回来看看，可能有不少新的内容了。 |
5楼2011-08-26 23:41:35
zhaocy8903
木虫 (知名作家)
- 应助: 24 (小学生)
- 金币: 3822.5
- 散金: 1238
- 红花: 17
- 帖子: 5798
- 在线: 1468.5小时
- 虫号: 636507
- 注册: 2008-10-25
- 专业: 微生物遗传育种学
2楼2011-08-26 21:17:45
tea_gl9871
铜虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 6.6
- 散金: 656
- 红花: 3
- 帖子: 654
- 在线: 208.5小时
- 虫号: 726661
- 注册: 2009-03-19
- 专业: 发育生物学
3楼2011-08-26 21:19:48
leimiao_hit
木虫之王 (文学泰斗)
小元
- SEPI: 7
- 应助: 1336 (讲师)
- 贵宾: 0.707
- 金币: 113735
- 散金: 12354
- 红花: 385
- 沙发: 888
- 帖子: 85000
- 在线: 6307.5小时
- 虫号: 1264338
- 注册: 2011-04-13
- 专业: 蔬菜学与瓜果学
【答案】应助回帖
tea_gl9871(金币+10): 谢谢你的模板，但不适合我的情况。感谢了 2011-08-26 23:59:45
|
下面是写的申诉信： Dear Professor ???: This is the second time for our manuscript titled ^^^^^to be submitted to Environmental Science & Technology in this week. The manuscript was rejected without sending out for review by the associated editor,^^^^. There is no believable reason in the decision letter for us to accept the conclusion. Firstly, (The novelty of my work^^^^^). We believe that our investigation is a good work with significant scientific meaning on the environmental remediation. Second, this is the third time that Prof. ??? has rejected our manuscripts. Although the reviewers required the revision manuscripts in the last two submissions of our previous work, he made the final reject decisions. This time he rejected our best work with unbelievable reason. Furthermore, some members of his group are carrying out the investigation on ???. Consequently, it is not appropriate to assign our manuscript to him. It is true that Prof. ??? is an expert. However, if there is a chance, we strongly hope that our manuscript will be assigned to any other associated editor but Prof. ??? . Sincerely yours |
4楼2011-08-26 23:40:03
