24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (4350)
>文献求助 (251)
>导师招生 (237)
>博后之家 (225)
>论文投稿 (206)
>虫友互识 (157)
>硕博家园 (81)
>有机交流 (80)
>考博 (69)
>招聘信息布告栏 (44)
>学术会议 (35)
>休闲灌水 (31)
>基金申请 (20)
>找工作 (18)
>考研 (15)
>SciFinder/Reaxys (13)

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

fwforest

金虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 3619.4
散金: 780
红花: 2
帖子: 270
在线: 399.4小时
虫号: 846321
注册: 2009-09-12
性别: GG
专业: 水文地质学(含地热地质学)

[求助] 大家帮忙看一下这个申诉的话有希望吗？已有9人参与

今年年初往springer旗下的一个期刊投了一篇comment，因为之前做研究的时候读到这上面的一篇文章，发现有非常明显的错误，而且可以肯定完完全全是错误。
我发现那篇文章有问题的时候发给很多同学看过，问他们的评价，都一致同意我所指出的那个错误，而且这个错误直接导致文章的结论也完全有问题。
于是在今年的一月份写了这篇comment投过去，准确时间是1月23日，到现在已经快11个月了，今天刚返回初审意见，告诉我据稿。两个审稿人意见，现贴出来给大家看一下，大家帮忙判断一下还有必要申诉吗？
倒不是说一定要发表这篇论文，而是说审稿花了我近一年的时间，最后告诉我据稿，而且没给我任何能够让我信服的理由，这个我真的非常无语。
其实这个期刊在我们行业还是比较认可的，现在越来越失望。恳请各位牛人帮忙看一下，还有没有必要申诉。金币不够可以追加。

Comments for the Author:
The manuscript has received two reviews both of which agree that the manuscript is not suitable for publication.
The Editor is sorry for the delay in responding to you, but the work cannot be published in XXXXXXXXXXXX.
Reviewer #1: The authors discussed the article "manuscript11111" by AAA and BBB, published recently in XXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
Unfortunately, it is difficult for me to estimate the critical arguments by MMMMM, since I am not a specialist in experiments. I can only say that the results of the discussed article "manuscript11111" by AAA and BBB are not consistent with the theoretical investigations of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, as it is justified in the paper 2 and other earlier works.
Therefore, I cannot give a recommendation concerning the note by MMMMM. But I should give negative opinion for the paper "manuscript11111" by AAA and BBB by the above explained reasons.

Reviewer #3: The objective of this Note is to present a comment on the article "manuscript11111" by AAA and BBB, published recently in XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
However, the Note in the present form is not clear.
The way of doing this goal is not given with a clear and simple way.
However, some examples are missing.

For all these reasons I think that this Note in the present form must not be accepted for publication.

另外我补充一下以下几点：
1.可能有虫友会建议我不要写comment，这样会得罪人。我同意这个观点，毕竟本人还是小菜鸟一个。但是我在写之前专门查过那篇文章作者所发的论文，也是小菜鸟一个。他在这篇文章之前，另一篇相似内容的论文发的连SCI都不是，在我们行业听都没听说过的杂志，而且他总共也没几篇论文，没有好文章。补充一下，他是老外。
2.reviewer #3说我没有提供例子，因为我用它那篇文章里面的实验数据指出他那篇文章里面的问题，如果各位大侠知道这个例子应该怎么补充的话，麻烦指点一下，不胜感激。

回复此楼