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

这样的讨厌儿

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 147.5
帖子: 6
在线: 9.8小时
虫号: 2683266

[交流] 一审大修，二审遭遇据稿说可重投，求大家帮忙分析情况

各位虫友，这日子口，先在这里给大家拜个年~

哎哎~~稿子投给Land Use Policy，一审俩专家，一个很认可几乎没提意见（Re1）；一个意见很多，从标题、语言、内容等方面提了很多的意见和建议，最后没说明说评审结果，但给了句“Please answer all my questions clearly”（Re2）。于是乎一审主编给出了大修的结果。

非常认真地按照意见进行修改重新润色后，大概花了一个月的时间，再投。结果又过了一个月的时间收到二审的结果：居然是拒稿！——这次主编是送给了Re2和一个新的专家（Re3），Re3的意见非常积极，让小修后接受。就是那个Re2这次直白地说什么文章中国特色，很多人都不可能读懂之类的（唉，心想这话你怎么不早说！）于是乎主编说：拒稿，但说可以重投。

事情的来龙去脉就是这样。第一次投稿，缺少经验，想问：
1.据稿但说可以重投编辑到底是什么个态度？如果还想给机会，给个大修的结果不更好吗？
2. 我把编辑的回信黏贴在这里了，请大家帮我看看就我的情况而言，是否有必要重新投（其实，我重投的倾向大，但是真心担心是徒劳啊）？
3.我看了一下，这个杂志的重新投比较特别，不像有的杂志投稿系统上还可以选择是第一次投这个稿件还是非第一次，它没有对此进行区分。但听编辑的意思是如果重投他愿意再重新开启审稿过程，不知道如此重新投稿的话，能否保证还会分给这个编辑还是？
4. 此外，有谁知道这个杂志文章类型里有个叫“Themed Issue: Land Use Policy in China”，这个是什么？我投稿时选择的是“Regular paper”，不知道区别多大？

附：编辑回信和Re2评审意见
Dear ****,

Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. The first author rejects the manuscript on the grounds that it is not really suitable fr an international audience. The second referee makes several favourable comments bit also finds that there is insufficient engagement with an international literature. Hence I cannot accept the manuscript in its current firm.

I think you need to consioder whether you wish to publish this essentially for a Chinese audience or whether you want it to be read by an international readership. If you desire the latter then I think you need to make substantial changes to provide a broader context.

I will be willing to receive a revised manuscript but you should submit this as brand new submission and I will start the review process afresh.

For your guidance, I append the reviewers' comments below.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

Yours sincerely,

*****

Reviewer #2: Dear Editor and Authors:

I have finished reading this story about. The work of discussing the influence of LCSM on national territory arrangement in China should be encouraged in recent years, but I still further hope all works must be enhanced based on scientific principle. We must design any new models or conceptions using "truth" not social or governmental policy.
I appreciate the author's scrupulous revision work on this MS, but I have to reject this MS. Lots of specific words in this story are confusing and puzzling for readers. Many readers cannot understand the story the author described. So I think this story only be an interesting story for Chinese researchers or governmental officers. This is not suitable fr an international audience.

Thanks

回复此楼