24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

【有奖交流】积极回复本帖子，参与交流，就有机会分得作者 yangyutao 的 71 个金币

yangyutao

金虫 (正式写手)

应助: 24 (小学生)
金币: 1027.4
帖子: 423
在线: 109.3小时
虫号: 1475199

[交流] 踱步三月斑驳巷，独赏石苔倾流年。

紫藤空惹蜂蝶恋，黛桃忽念花柳肩。雨丝窸窣抚微浪，凫水潺湲现归帆。
这里不带有任何的个人情感，和个人意见，只是想和大家交流一下投稿的经验，希望以后虫虫们少走弯路。之所以选了这么一个煽情的题目，是想表达过去的一年里，我为SCI付出的艰辛努力。全是血泪史啊！不知道从哪里说起，就从刚开始投文章开始说吧，2012年底，我的实验大体完成，当时自己心气儿挺高，就读于一所非211,985院校，自认为只要严格要求自己，多学知识总有美好的未来，所以，尽管学校对小硕毕业没有文章要求，但我还是希望自己两年半的研究生生活有所收获，就积极的阅读文献，做实验，这里补充一下，本人物理化学专业，方向是有机高分子合成，在2012年年底，我着手开始写论文，利用13年春节假期完成了初稿，学校开学后，就开始找老师修改文章，无果，老师太忙没有时间管这些事，曾经一度我为自己当初选择导师的事情懊悔不已，不应该选择大导，他们功成名就，干劲少了很多，积极的虫子们谨记，个人经历仅供大家参考。看到老板这边没有太大指望，只能自己努力，想师兄师姐请教，有时也向别的老师请教，我们同实验室的另一位小导师帮了我很大的忙，文章终于落成，就开始着手选杂志投稿，我还是礼貌性的征求了我导师的意见，后来发现非常不现实，当时老师建议投一影响因子5.3的杂志，我自己是没有底气的，因为实验室条件有限，得到的指导也很有限，没有项目资金的支持，从想法到路线再到最后的一系列测试，完全是自己凭借文献和运气得来的，好在实验结果还好，当时，我和老板说出了实话，担心投这么高杂志中不了，也有私心希望投个低一些的，能快点中，好评国奖，但是，老师一脸不高兴，他要的是好文章，他说，档次高一点的文章对我的将来也好，我自认为导师没有说错，但当我的将来到来时结果却不是这样的，2013年年底我照样没有找到工作，这个大环境先不说。我没有说服导师，就投了该杂志（polymer chemistry），13年的五一劳动节我提交的文章，这个杂志的审稿速度很快，但是最近几年非常不好中，我的博士师兄10年发的时候非常容易中，这是一个新期刊，但发展的很好，对文章的要求也很高，大约两周给回信，结果是“拒稿”，下面附上审稿意见：
> Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 22:02:17 -0400
> From: polymers@rsc.org

> Subject: Polymer Chemistry - Decision on Manuscript ID PY-ART-05-2013-000558
>
> 16-May-2013
>
> Dear Prof. :
>
> I write you in regards to manuscript # PY-ART-05-2013-000558 entitled "Synthesis and characterization of aminoporphyrin-end-functionalized poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) with photodynamic effect, thermo-responsive property for PDT treatment" which you submitted to Polymer Chemistry.
>
> In view of the comments of the reviewer(s) found at the bottom of this letter, we cannot proceed with the publication of your manuscript in Polymer Chemistry.
>
> Thank you for considering Polymer Chemistry for the publication of your research. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Associate Editor, Polymer Chemistry
> tangbenz@ust.hk
>
> Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
> Referee: 1
> Comments to the Author
> The manuscript authored by Duan et. al. described the preparation of phorphyrin end functionalized PNIPAM by ATRP. The themoresponsive property of such polymer has been investigated. Also there were a lot of papers reported the polymerization behavior by using phorphrin centered functionalized agents as the initiator in ATRP or CTA in RAFT for different kinds of monomers, such as styrene, MMA, or thermoresponsive PDEA. The ATRP of NIPAM using mono-functional phorphrin initiator was interesting. Furthermore, the potential PDT application of such materials was interesting. The preperties was investigated with well-organized experiment. However, some important information must be clarified before this manuscript can be published.
> 1. Page 5: “poly(nbutyl acrylate)” should revised as “poly(n-butyl acrylate)”;
> 2. Page 6: “In this paper, we synthesized amphiphilic copolymers…”. It was confused that the author using “copolymer” to describe the polymer they prepared. Normally, copolymer means the polymer prepared with two or more monomers. However, in the current manuscript, only NIPAM was used as the monomer. Thus, the authors cannot obtain “copolymer”. Numerous similar words can be found in the manuscript;
> 3. Page 7: in the GPC part, the author should mention the details of columns used for the characterization, such as type, column numbers, molecular weight range of the columns etc. The molecular weight obtained from GPC is the relative value, it was differed with the conditions and calibration standard;
> 4. Page 8: the molar ratio of monomer to initiator for the ATRP was set as 20:1. The obtained molecular weight of the polymer with the as high as 15000 Da at the conversion of 50% (Table 1). The author should mention such high differs between thoretical molecular weight with GPC determined molecular weight. Normally, the molecular weight of PNIPAM determined by GPC using PS as the calibrate was differed with their actual value. However, the result showed in current manuscript indicated that the molecular weight obtained from NMR was very closed to the value obtained from GPC. Thus, other methods should be used to determine the exact molecular weight of PNIPAM. The author should provide the results by using SEC with UV-detector and laser scatter detector. Furthermore, aggregation of the phorphrin core always happen in the solution. Such aggregation would evidently affect the determination of molecular weight by SEC. Thus, the MALDI-TOF spectra of polymers should be provided to verify the structure of the PNIPAM. The information of molecular weight in current manuscript is extremely important for the following thermo-responsive behaviro investigation;
> 5. The elution trace of GPC should be provided in the support information;
> 6. Page 13: The metalization of porphyrin core was very easy to happen in ATRP. The NMR results indicated that the signal according to proton within porphyrin core was dissappeared after the polymerization confirmed such metalization. However, the author using the structure with free porphyrin core throught the manuscript. Also, it was important to verify such metalization. The information of copper concentration in PNIPAM should be provided;
> 7. Page 12: “The signals appeared at -2.85 ppm…assigned to the end amino…” should be verified;
> 8. Page 16: please give the definition of QF2 in Table 2;
> 9. Page 17: Figure 8. The results showed that the LCST was decreased with the increasing of molecular weight. Well relationship with the LCST of porphyrin functionalized PNIPAM and molecular weight was observed. As it well-know that the LCST of PNIPAM was related to its molecular weight. Thus, the comparation of LCST for the porphyrin functionalized PNIPAM with PNIPAM should be carried out with the same molecular weight and same conditions. Otherwise, the statement made by authors in Page 18 “…the LCST of … was higher than PNIPAM when the molecular weight was lower…” was meaningless.
>
>
> Referee: 2
> Comments to the Author
> This is a interesting research work. In this study, the photodynamic effect, thermo-responsive property and luminescent property of the copolymer were investigated through MTT, Turbidimetry, and Fluorescence measurement, and the copolymer was characterized by 1H NMR spectra, Infrared spectra, UV-Vis spectra and gel permeation chromatography. This manuscript could be accepted after the following points are addressed:
> 1) The part of introduction need to be described in detail about the research in recent years. The advance of this article needs to be highlighted.
> 2) Language in manuscript need to be polished further. The text needs to be carefully checked.
> 3) The author didn’t explain the purpose of the property of thermosensitive. It should be explained.
> 4) In Fig. 5 and Fig. 4, the assigned characteristic absorption peaks of porphyrin should be pointed out in detail.
> 5) In Fig. 6 , the Figure note should not be replaced with (a), (b), (c).
> 6) The discussion of Fig. 10 in manuscript failed to be consistent with the result of Fig. 10. It should be explained.

就是基于上述意见，导师认为审稿人意见积极，只是编辑拒稿，有申诉的可能，极力主张申诉，当时，我大概明白了导师的意思，他就是在赌，如果申诉成功，他多了一篇好文章，如果不成功，他不损失什么，耽误的是我的时间和精力以及为之付出的一切一切，个中间艰辛就不必多说了，把我当时在木虫上的求助帖链接放在这里，供大家参考，http://muchong.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=5900522
经过了长达一个月的时间，按审稿人要求补齐实验，这期间已经和杂志社联系申诉，
申诉信如下供大家参考，不过给大家一个个人建议，轻易不要去申诉，除非我们将来做了大导，很牛

Dear Prof.
Thanks for your letter in response to our previous submission of our manuscript # PY-ART-05-2013-000558 entitled "Synthesis and characterization of aminoporphyrin-end-functionalized poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) with photodynamic effect, thermo-responsive property for PDT treatment". I am sorry to learn that our manuscript was rejected. After having carefully read your letter, I feel little bit confused as your decision. Two reviewers made a lot of constructive suggestions to our manuscript, and affirmed the research work we have made at the same time. We carefully considered the reviewers’ comments and would like to further modify the manuscript according to your letters.
Point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments and reversed manuscript are enclosed in appendix. I will be most grateful if you could offer us a second opportunity (or an additional opportunity if the rejected manuscript is already a revised one).
Look forward to hearing from you soon,
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,

杂志社给与回复，说同意在审，大约在13年六月15号前后，我又一次向PC提交了文章，杂志审稿速度依旧很快，这一点毫无疑问，但由于我个人第一次投稿，再加上申诉一系列的操作，耽误了一些事情，最后杂志社按新稿审阅的，给出了非常中肯的意见“拒稿"，下面吧二次审稿意见付给大家以供参考：

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Referee: 1
Comments to the Author
This paper reports on the synthesis and characterization of aminoporphyrin-end-functionalized poly(N-isopropylamide), which shows photodynamic effect and thermo-responsive property for PDT treatment. The paper is of some interests to be potentially publishable. In this revised version, the authors have tried to address the comments raised by the reviewers to improve the quality. However, certain issues are still remained and must be addressed carefully before the paper can be considered for publication.
1. There are still numerous grammar and spelling mistakes (at least more than 30)  in the manuscript, although the authors claimed that they had tried to revise and check the manuscript carefully in this revised version based on the comments from reviewer 2.  Authors should ask an English expert to check their manuscript.
2. Cancer cells are not “cancel cells”. There are a few places with “cancel cells”.
3. These porphyrin compounds are not “dyad”.
4. Why the authors have to prepare a diamino-porphyrin and modify one amino group for ATRP initiator?
5. The authors need to be precise about the synthetic procedure and the purity characterization of organic compounds in this paper to ensure the reported procedure can be successfully repeated by others later. In this manuscript, 1H NMR was used as the primary technique to determine structure identity, and elemental analysis data was provided as the solid evidence for the purity.  Even though the assignment of the 1H NMR spectrum of TPP was presented clearly in Fig. S1, the interpretation of 1H NMR spectrum of TPP was wrong and needs to verify (Page 6). The interpretation of NMR spectrum of compound NH2-TPP-Cl (in Page 7) needs also to be checked carefully and corrected properly. According to RSC requirements, the acceptable EA data (especially for C, H, N) needs to be in the range of ±0.4% for the new molecules for the high purity. However, the EA data provided in this revised version for most of new compounds (including compound 1, 3, 4) exceeds the acceptable range. Thus this set of elemental analysis needs to be double checked.
6. In Page 10, “This signals appeared at -2.85 and 10.78 ppm assigned to the end amino and acylamino of porphyrin, respectively” needs to be corrected, since this description is not consistent with the spectrum assignment in Fig. 4 and -2.85 ppm CAN NOT be assigned to the end amino group. In addition, in Page 12 the authors stated “…..the signals appeared at 9.8 and 5.5 ppm assigned to the end amino and acylamino of porphyrin…” Thus a careful verification will be greatly appreciated to avoid any further confusion.
7. The reference part needs to be carefully corrected and revised in the RSC format. For example,  “4. S. L. Manoto MTech, N. N. Houreld DTech, H. Abrahamse PhD, Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, 2013, 45, 196-194.”
8. Page 19, “... (P2, Mn,GPC = 5820; P3, Mn,GPC = 5820

” should be double checked. In the same page, “thereby polymers with lower molecular weight always exhibit cffcient photoxicity.” What does this mean?
9. Figure 6. How can the authors get porphyrin’s emission around 470 nm? Porphyrins with similar structure of TPP should only emit at red spectral window around 650 nm.
10. The authors did not mention whether the polymers are cell permeable or not. This is critical, if the polymers are not permeable, they are difficult to use.
11. Table 2. About quantum yields. Is the quantum yield expressed in percentage? Authors should show the quantum yield of TPP in the table. I cannot find the detailed procedure for the quantum yield measurement and what a reference the authors used for the measurement. The detailed procedure should be provided.

Referee: 2
Comments to the Author
Although the subject of this manuscript, i.e. the development of thermoresponsive photosensitizers, is interesting, the scientific value is very poor. First, it is not clear how the thermoresponsiveness contribute to the beneficial properties of the constructs. Second, the authors suggest in the introduction some pH responsiveness (see fig. 2), however this aspect was not investigated. Third, particle formation and stability at physiological conditions was not investigated at all. Forth, the reason for cancer cell selectivity was not investigated. For those main reasons and many other issues detailed below, I strongly recommend to reject this manuscript for publication.

Further comments are:
1) Phototoxicity experiments can not be compared with cell viability experiments, because they were carried out at 0 and 37 degrees, respectively. Dark measurements should be carried out under exactly the same conditions as the phototoxicity experiments but with the exclusion of light. Therefore, any conclusions from phototoxicity experiments are not validated.
2) The English grammar is very poor and many words are misspelled; this would need substantial improvement. Just to mention few examples: dyad (=dye?), corn (=core), substations (=substituents), present tense should be used when referring to figures and tables, and so on and so forth.
3) Figure 1 is useless.
4) Paragraph 2.3: attribution of aminophenyl peak in NMR is different from figure S2.
5) When attributing FTIR peaks, references to literature should be given.
6) Page 10 (just above fig. 3): NMR peak at -2.85 can not be assigned to the end amino group.
7) At least one typical MALDI-TOF spectrum should be shown in the supporting information. Moreover, from these spectra it should in principle be possible to determine the mass of the end group. This would have been highly valuable for the characterization of the polymers.
8) Why are the authors convinced that the peak at 5.5 ppm in fig. 5 is attributed to the free amine? It is known (and is also clear from the different spectra shown in this manuscript) that the position of amine peaks highly fluctuates depending on solvent, water content, temperature, etc. Therefore, it is quite ambiguous to calculate the molecular weight from this peak, and I would recommend skipping this part when the authors decide to resubmit this manuscript somewhere else.
9) Since the porphyrin peaks can not be separately discerned in the FTIR spectra of the pNIPAm conjugates, it can not be concluded that the product was successfully prepared (last sentence of paragraph 3.1). So far, the only indications are the UV/vis and fluorescence spectra. To make this more conclusive, it is strongly recommended to perform GPC measurements with UV/vis and/or fluorescence detection at the wavelength of the porphyrine units.
10) Section 3.2, page 13: the authors mention aggregated particles, while UV/vis spectra were recorded in CH2Cl2 solutions? Moreover, on the next page the authors mentioned that aggregation was avoided. This seems odd and contradicting.
11) What is “grant electron effect of repeating unit NIPAM”? Should be explained with proper references.
12) According to figure S6, the fluorescence is strongly quenched at elevated temperature in water. This will have strong negative implications for future PDT in vivo! Unfortunately, fluorescence quantum yields were only calculated in organic solution, not at physiological relevant conditions.
13) The last sentence of section 3.2 is invalid, because the influence of concentration was determined below the LCST, so not at physiological relevant conditions.
14) Two sections were numbered 3.2 (page 13 and 16). Similarly, section 3.3 should be 3.4, and so on.
15) On page 17, the authors mentioned the presence of long alkoxy substituents on the peripheral benzene rings of porphyrin??????? I don’t see them in the structures shown in this manuscript !
16) The synthesis and characterization of non-functional pNIPAM polymers used as controls in cytotoxicity experiments was not described.
17) First sentence of current section 3.4 is useless.
18) Page 19: The significance of the suggested higher phototoxicity of P2 to cancer cells than P3 should be proven by proper statistical analysis of the results.
19) The statement “Preferential and specific accumulation around the tumor cells” (conclusion section) is not investigated in this manuscript and should therefore be removed from this section.
这次老板哑口无言，他也承认，我们的文章确实不够好（他一直都不知道文章的水平就近有多高），此时已经是13年七月初，我和老板说，想投一个三点多的杂志，老师不同意，说5点多的杂志能得到这么好的审稿意见，只要好好修改是可以投更好的的，后来就有花了将近一个月的时间补齐实验，按老板要求投了，Journal of Polymer Science Part A Polymer Chemistry，这个杂志是老牌杂志，老板当年留学中过一篇，他对这个杂志情有独钟，尽管这篇杂志的印象因子不算高（3.98），但很难中，对文章的新颖性要求很高，我当时投文章时，心里非常清楚，但是很无奈，审稿速度也很快大约是在三周后给的意见'拒稿"，审稿意见很一般，没有给出特别的说明，只是说文章水平不够。这时已经是13年的秋天了，东北的秋天来的很早，只记得我当时心情极差，这一次，我想按我的意见投，老师不同意，他说越投印象因子低的审稿速度越慢，这句话是正确的，一般来说国外的比国内的快，印象因子高的比低的快。后来投了Macromolecular Rapid Communications（约4.9），我当时是破罐子破摔，因为如果不按老板要求投，他会把文章压到我毕业，这样就不是我的了，一切努力都白费了，我当时失去了理智，也不想着指望这篇文章能带给我什么惊喜，只要我这一年的努力能给我一点点心灵上的慰藉，我就不会一年都生活在和老板斗智斗勇的紧张状态下，最终，老板的话，切底击垮了我的人生信仰，我真正的明白了老板和老师的差别。这次投稿得到的结果是”拒稿“，我没有悲伤，没有失望，也没有不平衡，客观评价，Macromolecular Rapid Communications，审稿速度超快，两周一定回搞，但要求很高，特别是在合成物质方面。这是已经是国庆节了，我又收拾了一下心情，走进老板办公室，他这次没有说什么，只是说你再投吧，但不能投印象因子三以下的，我和他说了国奖的事，但他表示无能为力，我也就放弃了这个想法，只希望老天开开眼，让我在毕业前他这篇文章接受了，让我还有奋斗的勇气，后来我理解了他，他确实无能为力。后来我自己投了carbohydrate polymers（3.4），当时老板说，这个杂志可能不适合，但我还是坚持了自己的选择，该杂志之前办的不错，但收录的文章偏向于糖类合成，审稿周期很长（两个月），我大约是在投出去一个月的时候写的催稿信，当时文章还没有送审，催稿信付下，供大家参考；

Sorry for disturbing you. I am not sure if it is the right time to contact you to inquire about the status of my submitted manuscript titled “***”. (Manuscript Number: ***), although the status of “Under Review” has been lasting for more than eight weeks, since submitted to journal two months ago. So I would like to inquire about the status of our manuscript.
I would be greatly appreciated if you could spend some of your time check the status for us. I am very pleased to hear from you on the reviewer’s comments.
Thank you very much for your consideration.

杂志社回信说，最近稿子很多，在处理，又过了一个月后，审稿结果出来了，'拒稿"，编辑拒稿，压了两个月也没有送审，我分析原因可能是文章太多，人家不稀罕，也看不过来。另外这个杂志要求英文水平，一般会提前让你润色，如果润色不过就会不予送审。这时是临近新年，过奖评定结束，我没有悲伤，也没有绝望，反而庆幸我自己还活着，于是我继续着我的投稿生涯，这次投了”chemistry-an asian journal“，大约20天一审回来，两个审稿人，意见比较简单，编辑让大修，当时我是不抱希望的，整体来说这一年比较霉，但是介于投稿周期比较长，
还是选择来了补实验，大约完成实验又用了一个月，再次上传，接近13年尾声，学校放假，回家过年，年三是当天，老板打电话说文章中了，需要上传单独图片，投稿的虫子们注意，写文章是，要先整理好图片，然后插入到文章中，还有就是投文章除了特别要求，一般不要用模板，调格式很费劲，好，回归正题，大年三十上传图片，也很刺激，接着，初一签协议，初一到十五之间老板不停的给我打电话处理一些文章收录后的事情，包括将70字的中文摘要缩短到五十字以内（杂志要求附件一个母语摘要），（PS，老板那里有一切手稿，）当时我在家里，上网不是很方便，可是，我已经不想再和老板说什么。我的文章涉及到细胞的荧光标记，杂志社建议用彩图，但是需要花钱，老板就强调，我们绝不用彩图，凡事花钱的都不要，我不断的和杂志社交涉着（PS，老板英文不行，从来不管这些事儿），最后杂志社还是给用了彩图，但是没要钱，直到今天我问老板的邮箱密码，说要上传校稿文章，他还问我为什么校稿这么慢，我不想和他多说，我也曾怀疑自己的能力不够，但现在不了，因为实验室上至博士师兄师姐，下至师弟师妹去年都没有发出文章来，他的硕士更是好几年都没有人发出文章来，我现在知道了，是我想要的太多，才活的那么累（我今年小硕，一篇专利，一篇会议，两篇SCI，PS，有一篇还压在老板手里，另一篇就是本文提到的这篇）现在我今年也一直没回学校（今年毕业，忙着找工作）。今天晚上校稿完成，文章终于出炉，对于chemistry-an asian journal（印象因子4.7），个人认为对文章要求不是很高，但是需要一定的新颖性，审稿周期比较快，文章对英文要求不算高，尽管提出了润色的要求，但是我只是自己改了一下就通过了，也有可能是我文章改了很多遍的原因，刚开始说不带个人情感，但中途可能没把握好，望虫子小伙伴们不要对号入座，不要猜测我的导师及院校。希望这一大片的文字能对大家有帮助。如果大家现在也深陷其中，一定要坚持，尽管我们不能左右结果，但我们可以把我过程，投稿这一年多的时间，我一直生活在阴霾里，以至于先在老板建议我读博士，我都没有勇气和信心，其中的艰辛自不必多说。我只中了一篇SCI，但我经历了投文章可能遇到的所有事情，拒稿，大修，小修，催稿，申诉等等，在过去的一年里，我明显的感觉到自己在加速的苍老，写了这么多就是想告诉虫子们，如果有谁过的不如意，那么看见这篇帖子，是不是会好一点点呢！祝，奋斗在化学一线的孩子们学有所成，学有所用！

[ Last edited by yangyutao on 2014-3-4 at 18:18 ]

回复此楼

» 收录本帖的淘贴专辑推荐

SCI审稿意见回复

» 本帖已获得的红花（最新10朵）

yangyutao

creatorliu

2013忆江南

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关商家推荐: (我也要在这里推广)

» 抢金币啦！回帖就可以得到:
查看全部散金贴

1楼2014-03-03 20:58:02

[硕博家园] 92年辅导员何去何从？ +8	迷途小书童cd 2024-07-22	8/400	2024-07-27 07:49 by csyky2007
[基金申请] 国基资助率最新消息 +14	lhz_smu 2024-07-26	15/750	2024-07-27 07:48 by csyky2007
[基金申请] 今年有啥漏洞吗？pdf后缀怎么破？ +7	chat1234 2024-07-26	7/350	2024-07-26 22:26 by 德尚中行
[基金申请] 今年青基难度 +11	conpepapro 2024-07-23	14/700	2024-07-26 22:02 by lifei00987
[基金申请] 收到了科研之友 +33	朋友别哭010 2024-07-23	43/2150	2024-07-26 20:50 by 3115321
[基金申请] H口会评已经结束了 +16	小胖子罗军 2024-07-25	18/900	2024-07-26 19:40 by licheng78
[基金申请] f0301 青基连续三次没上会 +14	1711020106 2024-07-23	14/700	2024-07-26 19:04 by ECOblance
[有机交流] 请教大佬肟与异氰酸酯的反应 150+3	lazy锦溪 2024-07-25	7/350	2024-07-26 14:59 by 江东闲人
[基金申请] 2024国社科会评时间确定 +10	张郎才进 2024-07-25	15/750	2024-07-26 12:42 by 运气懒人
[基金申请] 求助：计算机人工智能领域，cv方向，青基跟地区基金哪个更容易？ +9	l_1201 2024-07-22	15/750	2024-07-26 12:14 by akuan01
[基金申请] 医学口的时间戳有变化吗？应该录入完毕了吧？ +4	adson123 2024-07-25	5/250	2024-07-26 09:43 by kobe0107
[教师之家] 每次骚扰女学生的都是院系领导，R大院长又暴雷了 +5	zju2000 2024-07-22	6/300	2024-07-26 09:29 by liuyupu132
[考博] 硕士期间没有产出可以读博吗 +5	lambhgg 2024-07-20	6/300	2024-07-25 16:14 by penghande123
[找工作] offer待选，求推荐 +3	吃米饭萨摩耶 2024-07-25	3/150	2024-07-25 15:46 by 易水刀客
[基金申请] 是不是没有消息基本就中不了了， +21	willyan 2024-07-22	24/1200	2024-07-25 15:03 by 来巡山吧
[基金申请] 面上已挂，明年再战 +31	翩翩美少年2号 2024-07-23	41/2050	2024-07-25 00:14 by archerlu1982
[基金申请] 请教各位大佬：当前省青年科学基金成员人数多少合适？多或少会有什么影响吗 +4	lt920504 2024-07-23	6/300	2024-07-24 16:51 by Tansund
[基金申请] 评审今年的本子有感，不要焦虑，不要怀疑公平。 +48	wuzhihai 2024-07-21	64/3200	2024-07-24 12:21 by zqj3102112
[有机交流] 酰胺合成 +5	A夏瑛琪 2024-07-21	6/300	2024-07-22 17:27 by ppyt
[基金申请] 科技部也是被拆散后，才勉强拿两个小弟开刀问罪 +7	babu2015 2024-07-21	7/350	2024-07-22 09:18 by liberty660

24小时热门版块排行榜

[交流] 踱步三月斑驳巷，独赏石苔倾流年。

» 收录本帖的淘贴专辑推荐

» 本帖已获得的红花（最新10朵）

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关商家推荐: (我也要在这里推广)

» 抢金币啦！回帖就可以得到:查看全部散金贴

» 本帖已获得的红花（最新10朵）

» 抢金币啦！回帖就可以得到:
查看全部散金贴