论文悲剧了。。。。。,但审稿人给了机会,这样再投还有机会吗?
下面是意见:
Dear Dr. XXX,
The paper you submitted was sent out to referees for review. Please find enclosed their reports. As you can see, the referees find the manuscript unsuitable for publication; so much that one of them even recommends rejection.
On the whole, the recommendations could leave some chance for the paper to be prepared in a more acceptable form for publication, but it is however clear that the manuscript has to be substantially revised and improved, practically rewritten. In particular, the comments of Referee 2 are especially severe. Under similar circumstances, from an editorial point of view the manuscript can only be PROVISIONALLY REJECTED. This means that, if you wish, you may resubmit a new manuscript based on this work. It is up to you to judge whether you will be able to present convincing arguments to the referees, particularly to Referee 2. In resubmitting a new version, please be aware that the new manuscript has to go to the relevant reviewers for further perusal and should thus either conform to or adequately rebut their requests. In any case the new manuscript will receive a different registration number.
In the eventual preparation of a new manuscript (PLEASE SPECIFY "SS13-XXX resubmitted" IN THE COVERING LETTER), I would be grateful if you could try to comply with the referees' recommendations giving adequate reasons for your views where you may disagree with their criticisms. It would be helpful if you could send me a list of amendments on a separate WORD file (REPLIES TO REFEREES - please provide separate replies to each referee) together with the electronic version (WORD) of the revised manuscript (PLEASE HIGHLIGHT CHANGES WITH A YELLOW BACKGROUND).
In particular, I urge you to conform to the TECHNICAL EDITORIAL ISSUES (as can be found in the Introduction section of the Guide to Authors at http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find ... authorinstructions) as well as to the guidelines regarding HIGHLIGHTS (as can be found in the Preparation section of the Guide to Authors and at http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/highlights).
NO DEADLINE IS FIXED FOR AN EVENTUAL RESUBMISSION.
Yours sincerely,
第一个审稿人态度很消极,建议拒稿;他的问题很尖锐,不好回答;
第二个审稿人态度很明朗,建议接收!但接收前做一些小修改,比较好回答他的问题。
编辑信中两次提到注意第二个审稿人的意见,这暗示什么吗?照理来说,如果按第二个审稿人的意见,文章修改后应该很容易被接收的,还是他把审稿人的顺序搞错了?如果按第一个审稿人的意见,就是现在的结果----被拒。但为什么又写信要求我重新提交呢?
现在这段时间,没有时间去修改,因为按这个意见,修改肯定花不少时间。昨夜想了一晚上,反正现在没时间修改,就转投至影响因子低一些,快一些的杂志,如果接收,这个事情就告一段落了,如果不接收,再花时间来改这个稿子,投至这个杂志,大家觉得这样可行吗?
我只是觉得换了我是编辑,如果我想要这片稿子,我也会通过这样的方式让重新投稿,换句话说,我觉得编辑给留了很大空间给我?大家看这封信觉得是怎么样呢?
非常感谢了!
[ Last edited by hokepoly on 2013-5-5 at 09:32 ] |