24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 1562  |  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
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
[论文投稿] 售SCI一区文章,我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可伽急 +3 2JOx3r2CYEgw 2026-08-21 8/400 2026-08-23 14:30 by KM5EcsNQRBPn
[硕博家园] 售SCI一区T0P文章,我:8.O55.1.O.54,科目全,可十急 +3 2JOx3r2CYEgw 2026-08-21 6/300 2026-08-23 14:21 by KM5EcsNQRBPn
[基金申请] 2026年的国家社科基金项目通讯评审的新规则与新动向、新挑战 +3 process2012 2026-08-23 4/200 2026-08-23 12:54 by huixian257
[教师之家] 跳槽后在研项目怎么办? +5 简单化xn 2026-08-22 10/500 2026-08-23 12:38 by 简单化xn
[基金申请] 2026国自然函评费到账 +15 羊腰板 2026-08-21 16/800 2026-08-23 10:45 by process2012
[基金申请] 今天放榜吗? +15 布布和一二 2026-08-19 16/800 2026-08-23 09:55 by 张春生
[考博] 售SCI一区T0P文章,我:8.O55.1.O.54,科目全,可十急 +3 2JOx3r2CYEgw 2026-08-21 10/500 2026-08-23 07:17 by OEbVnUOu01ol
[硕博家园] 售SCI一区文章,我:8O5.5.1.O5.4,科目全,可伽急 +3 2JOx3r2CYEgw 2026-08-22 7/350 2026-08-23 03:43 by OEbVnUOu01ol
[基金申请] 93BebMhtakh前后11位开头都是大写 +7 且听虎啸 2026-08-17 8/400 2026-08-22 21:55 by 医学老男孩
[基金申请] filecode,4个jtjc了 +13 ziyangfang 2026-08-19 16/800 2026-08-22 17:08 by WH3796
[教师之家] 售一区SCI文章T0P,我:8O.551.O54,科目全,可十急 +4 2JOx3r2CYEgw 2026-08-21 4/200 2026-08-22 16:52 by sunzitan
[基金申请] 人气不行了 +8 fansofjerry 2026-08-21 8/400 2026-08-22 16:30 by zyqchem
[基金申请] 时间戳今天,20号变了 +5 archvillain 2026-08-20 5/250 2026-08-22 06:12 by hui_daxiao
[基金申请] 放榜前的不淡定 40+4 snowwithsea 2026-08-19 14/700 2026-08-21 23:51 by cratir
[基金申请] 我面上完蛋了 +7 且听虎啸 2026-08-20 8/400 2026-08-21 12:31 by 酷酷墨镜
[基金申请] 今天放榜没戏了吧 +9 yuleib84 2026-08-19 11/550 2026-08-21 10:06 by gltch
[基金申请] 估计是周四 +3 archvillain 2026-08-18 3/150 2026-08-21 01:48 by jnhyjjm
[基金申请] 今天系统多次维护,明天很可能放榜! +10 zju2000 2026-08-16 11/550 2026-08-20 20:02 by cl479861084
[基金申请] 重要消息,中午系统在维护 +11 yuleib84 2026-08-18 12/600 2026-08-20 11:09 by xskun
[基金申请] 明天放榜? +5 Shxjjxjkx 2026-08-18 5/250 2026-08-18 18:14 by -大大大大大-
信息提示
请填处理意见