24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

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

chanboni

新虫 (正式写手)

应助: 1 (幼儿园)
金币: 284.4
散金: 815
红花: 5
帖子: 306
在线: 215.9小时
虫号: 655873
注册: 2008-11-16
专业: 质谱分析

[求助] 文章被拒了，两个审稿人意见完全相反，值得申诉么？

文章被拒了，一个审稿人认为目前的工作是别人之前工作的延伸，缺乏足够新意，另外一个审稿人说不用修改，可以发表，编辑说稿件太多就拒了。值得申诉么？
以下是编辑的拒稿的信和审稿人意见
Dear XXXX

Thank you for your submission of XXXX and for the above-mentioned Communication. We are unfortunately unable to accept your manuscript for publication in CHEMISTRY - A EUROPEAN JOURNAL.

Since considerably more Communications are received than we can possibly publish in the limited available space, a selection process has to be applied. In the course of this an article is first assessed whether it fits into the journal猀 program, whether it is likely to attract the attention of a wider readership, and whether its scientific quality is very high. In view of the fact that we can only accept the upper 40% of papers submitted we return all manuscripts to the authors immediately once we receive an outspoken negative report, particularly when the initial editorial assessment considered the content of the paper to be more suitable for a specialized journal.

We are sorry to have to disappoint you but trust that you will understand our decision based on this policy. This fast reaction should allow to submit your manuscript as early as possible to another journal. Please note that one should only appeal against such decisions when a great factual error in the referee report seems to be the basis for the decision. An appeal will not be considered if it is "only" a difference of opinion.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Lobat Doostdar
Associate Editor

____________________________

Referee 1:

Importance: C) less important

Hypotheses Yes/No: Yes

Appropriate Length: Yes

Different Journal: Asian Journal of Organic Chemistry

Recommend Acceptance: D) No *)

Referee Letter: The manuscript describes a XXXX based fluorescent probe for XXX. The work is an extension of Prof. XXX work (ref. 8). In this study, they studied XXX dyes that emit at longer wavelengths. The XXX derivatives are also based on known dyes. Although they emit at 620-643 nm, a NIR probe emitting at longer wavelength (~800 nm) is already reported by Prof. XXXX Neither useful information nor novel concept is provided in this work. Therefore, I do not recommend its publication in this journal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Referee 2:

This is a clean report that describes a red-shifted XXX fluorescent probe for XXX detection. The wavelength of excitation is useful for common 594 nm laser lines, and appropriate spectroscopic and cell imaging controls have been performed. I recommend publication without change to the science, only that one other relevant review on XXX probes be cited in the introduction that covers some aspects of the XXXX

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

+++++++++++++

回复此楼