24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 1442  |  回复: 4

mj2014

铜虫 (正式写手)

[交流] 给大家分享elsevier的“据稿的八大原因”,总结得很到位! 已有3人参与

链接: http://www.elsevier.com/connect/8-reasons-i-rejected-your-article

When a manuscript is submitted to a high-quality scholarly journal, it goes through intense scrutiny  — even before it's seen by the editor-in-chief and selected for peer review. At Elsevier, between 30 percent to 50 percent of articles don't even make it to the peer review process.
As Editor-in-Chief of Carbon, the international journal of the American Carbon Society, Dr. Peter Thrower experiences this situation first-hand. His advice to authors: "By avoiding these pitfalls, you will save reviewers, editors and staff time and frustration, and ensure that your work is judged by its scientific merit, not mistakes."

1. It fails the technical screening.
The article contains elements that are suspected to be plagiarized, or it is currently under review at another journal. (Republishing articles or parts of articles, submitting to one or more journals at the same time or using text or images without permission is not allowed. See our ethical guidelines.)
The manuscript is not complete; it may be lacking key elements such as the title, authors, affiliations, keywords, main text, references and all tables and figures).
The English is not sufficient for the peer review process,
The figures are not complete or are not clear enough to read.
The article does not conform to the Guide for Authors for the journal it is submitted to.
References are incomplete or very old.

2.  It does not fall within the Aims and Scope.
For the journal Carbon, the material studied may contain carbon, but is not carbon.
The study uses a carbon material but the focus is on something different.
There is no new carbon science.

3.  It's incomplete.
The article contains observations but is not a full study.
It discusses findings in relation to some of the work in the field but ignores other important work.

4.  The procedures and/or analysis of the data is seen to be defective.
The study lacked clear control groups or other comparison metrics.
The study did not conform to recognized procedures or methodology that can be repeated.
The analysis is not statistically valid or does not follow the norms of the field.

5.  The conclusions cannot be justified on the basis of the rest of the paper.
The arguments are illogical, unstructured or invalid.
The data does not support the conclusions.
The conclusions ignore large portions of the literature.

6.  It's is simply a small extension of a different paper, often from the same authors.
Findings are incremental and do not advance the field.
The work is clearly part of a larger study, chopped up to make as many articles as possible.

7.  It's incomprehensible.
The language, structure, or figures are so poor that the merit can't be assessed. Have a native English speaker read the paper. Even if you ARE a native English speaker. Need help? We offer language services.

8.  It's boring.
It is archival, incremental or of marginal interest to the field (see point 6).
The question behind the work is not of interest in the field.
The work is not of interest to the readers of the specific journals.
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐,对您同样有帮助:

已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

yuguiyan

至尊木虫 (文坛精英)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
跟爱思唯尔没啥关系

[ 发自小木虫客户端 ]
2楼2014-10-23 00:04:57
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

mj2014

铜虫 (正式写手)

引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by yuguiyan at 2014-10-23 00:04:57
跟爱思唯尔没啥关系

是 Elsevier Connect发布的文章啊,见
http://www.elsevier.com/connect/8-reasons-i-accepted-your-article
3楼2014-10-23 00:45:53
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

自私的猫1988

荣誉版主 (文坛精英)

优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
Accepted manuscripts all seem alike, but every rejected MS was rejected in its own way.
4楼2014-10-23 09:42:58
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

nono2009

超级版主 (文学泰斗)

No gains, no pains.

优秀区长优秀区长优秀区长优秀区长优秀版主


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
都是非常一般的理由,适合入门者。
5楼2014-10-23 10:30:35
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 mj2014 的主题更新
普通表情 高级回复 (可上传附件)
最具人气热帖推荐 [查看全部] 作者 回/看 最后发表
[考研] 一志愿西南交通 专硕 材料355 本科双非 求调剂 +3 西南交通专材355 2026-03-19 3/150 2026-03-20 09:34 by 每天只摆一小会
[考研] 材料学硕297已过四六级求调剂推荐 +4 adaie 2026-03-19 4/200 2026-03-20 09:31 by yuncha
[考研] 一志愿武汉理工材料工程专硕调剂 +6 Doleres 2026-03-19 6/300 2026-03-20 09:03 by xingguangj
[考研] 304求调剂 +5 曼殊2266 2026-03-18 5/250 2026-03-20 09:00 by ZHANG0tao
[论文投稿] 申请回稿延期一个月,编辑同意了。但系统上的时间没变,给编辑又写邮件了,没回复 10+3 wangf9518 2026-03-17 4/200 2026-03-19 23:55 by babero
[考研] 材料学硕318求调剂 +5 February_Feb 2026-03-19 5/250 2026-03-19 23:51 by 23Postgrad
[考研] 一志愿苏州大学材料求调剂,总分315(英一) +3 sbdksD 2026-03-19 3/150 2026-03-19 23:21 by fmesaito
[考研] 307求调剂 +9 冷笙123 2026-03-17 9/450 2026-03-19 22:44 by 学员8dgXkO
[考研] 复试调剂 +4 z1z2z3879 2026-03-14 6/300 2026-03-19 17:18 by fei626-918
[考研] 求调剂 +3 Mqqqqqq 2026-03-19 3/150 2026-03-19 14:11 by peike
[考研] 344求调剂 +6 knight344 2026-03-16 7/350 2026-03-18 20:13 by walc
[考博] 环境领域全国重点实验室招收博士1-2名 +3 QGZDSYS 2026-03-13 5/250 2026-03-18 11:13 by QGZDSYS
[考研] 考研调剂 +3 淇ya_~ 2026-03-17 5/250 2026-03-17 09:25 by Winj1e
[考研] 一志愿,福州大学材料专硕339分求调剂 +3 木子momo青争 2026-03-15 3/150 2026-03-17 07:52 by laoshidan
[考研] 283求调剂 +3 听风就是雨; 2026-03-16 3/150 2026-03-17 07:41 by 热情沙漠
[考研] 药学383 求调剂 +3 药学chy 2026-03-15 4/200 2026-03-16 20:51 by 元子^0^
[考研] 333求调剂 +3 文思客 2026-03-16 7/350 2026-03-16 18:21 by 文思客
[考研] 080500,材料学硕302分求调剂学校 +4 初识可乐 2026-03-14 5/250 2026-03-14 21:08 by peike
[考研] 289求调剂 +4 这么名字咋样 2026-03-14 6/300 2026-03-14 18:58 by userper
[考研] 一志愿哈工大材料324分求调剂 +5 闫旭东 2026-03-14 5/250 2026-03-14 14:53 by 木瓜膏
信息提示
请填处理意见