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

starrywang

新虫 (正式写手)

应助: 2 (幼儿园)
金币: 1854.7
散金: 3235
红花: 6
帖子: 895
在线: 223.5小时
虫号: 1504446
注册: 2011-11-22
性别: GG
专业: 工程热物理相关交叉领域

[交流] 投稿被拒，申诉回敬恶毒的审稿人！已有3人参与

某英文期刊投稿被拒，头尾两个审稿人意见中肯（小修或大修），中间一个审稿人把文章通篇驳斥了一通（态度非常不友好，而且不乏审稿人的各种学术错误和智商硬伤），最后来了一句LET ONE FINAL COMMENT: The authors seem that don't know the huge work made to date in the so-called western world, and already published in many papers. They don't know the real state-of-the-art.
本人自觉文章并非惊天地泣鬼神，但是在本研究领域属于沿着前人脚步往前走了明显的一步，且花费了大量的时间精力。这种低水平喷子审稿人还是第一次见到，坚决还击，抵制蠢货。呵呵，当然主要还是年轻气盛，斗斗法，看看能不能讨回个公道。
立帖为证，战况直播。

今天看文章状态已经回到审稿！感谢各位关心，后面希望有个正常的审稿人。
下面附上我的申诉信：
Dear editor:
Thank you for your effective work on the manuscript processing. I am sorry to learn that our manuscript was rejected based on the comment of the second reviewer who mentioned several times of "unacceptable" or "uncorrect" and "faults". However in our opinion, this reviewer seems to be lack of some common knowledge of waste incineration metal emission and made a lot of mistakes in his/her comment. Furthermore, we spent almost 7 months to finish these experiments just for the accuracy of data, but this reviewer said "The authors seem that don't know the huge work made to date in the so-called western world" without any reason. We have confidence in the usefulness, accuracy and forward position of our manuscript. So we don't think it is fair enough if our manuscript was rejected for the second reviewer's review which contains a lot of mistakes and personal abuse. We would like to ask if you could send it to a fourth referee for a review and then reconsider your decision. Thank you very much for your help!

Our rebuttals to the second reviewer’s “unacceptable ", "uncorrect", “none!” and "faults” are as follows. We can provide a formal version containing references if necessary.
……………………具体针对问题的辩诉内容就不贴了。

抗争过，无悔恨。年轻不气盛更待何时。

[ Last edited by starrywang on 2015-1-14 at 09:11 ]

-----------------------------------------------------------------
状态改为：Revisions and Resubmissions Requested by Editorial Office
编辑让修改一下，然后发给第四个审稿人。
Thank you for submitting your manuscript for publication in Energy & Fuels and for your recent note regarding my original decision of rejection based upon the reviewer comments, which are enclosed here. As before, the reviewers have expressed serious reservations about this work that I don’t believe could be addressed through a standard major revision. In light of the comments received, I am unable to accept the manuscript for publication in Energy & Fuels in its current form.

However, if further experimentation, analysis, and revisions allow you to address the referees concerns in full we would be happy to consider a new version submitted as a resubmission to this manuscript. Upon receipt of your comments and a revised draft, we will also invite a fourth reviewer to gain further perspective.

Please upload a point by point response to all reviewer comments if you decide to resubmit.

[ Last edited by starrywang on 2015-1-14 at 18:27 ]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
提交了修改后的稿子。response写了12页，也不算多。祝自己好运。

[ Last edited by starrywang on 2015-3-27 at 23:26 ]

…………………………………………………………
是时候给大家一个交代了，首先文章最近还是悲剧了感谢各位的关心鼓励和批评指教。resubmission之后又到了那位哥们手上，然后又是一顿喷………碰上这种审稿人人生也算是圆满了。他提的有的意见是好的，其他的比较无理取闹……得，我绕路走。

[ Last edited by starrywang on 2015-5-30 at 09:38 ]

回复此楼