24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 1441  |  回复: 4
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

Xiaochong_QQ

新虫 (小有名气)

[交流] 看到有讨论Scientific Reports是否为水刊的评论,贴一下其审稿要求。 已有4人参与

其最主要的问题在于“no requirement for novelty or broad interest”。不过这个“novelty or broad interest”如果仅靠有限的几个审稿人来判断其实也是片面的,那么“ judgement themselves post-publication”就看引用数了。目前SR的引用数应该说明其至少算不差的期刊。

To be considered for publication in Scientific Reports, a paper should be technically sound. Technical soundness refers to both methods and analysis, i.e. the methods must be appropriate and properly conducted, and the conclusions drawn must be fully supported by the data. Referees are asked not to make a judgement on the paper's importance - we ask the scientific community to make this judgement themselves post-publication.

Scientific Reports, unlike other journals published by Nature Publishing Group, does not, therefore, require an advance within a given field, and there is no requirement for novelty or broad interest.

The review form will rapidly allow you to provide feedback in the following areas:

- Is the paper technically sound?
- Are the claims convincing? If not, what further evidence is needed?
- Are the claims fully supported by the experimental data?
- Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature?
- If the manuscript is unacceptable in its present form, does the study seem sufficiently promising that the authors should be encouraged to consider a resubmission in the future?

In addition to answering the previous questions, you can provide further information as free-text, including comments that may answer the following:
- Is the manuscript clearly written? If not, how could it be made more accessible?
- Have the authors done themselves justice without overselling their claims?
- Have they been fair in their treatment of previous literature?
- Have they provided sufficient methodological detail that the experiments could be reproduced?
- Is the statistical analysis of the data sound?
- Are there any special ethical concerns arising from the use of animals or human subjects?
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

iamcuib

银虫 (著名写手)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
不能一概而论,我们领域发在SR上的文章都挺好的
4楼2015-07-23 15:30:01
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
查看全部 5 个回答

shdlhjzwl

木虫 (正式写手)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
影响因子5分的期刊居然对创新点完全没要求。。。不是水刊是啥?
2楼2015-07-01 12:55:03
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

sysuyaojd

金虫 (正式写手)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
三年内都不会改变其在国人心目中的水刊形象!

[ 发自小木虫客户端 ]
Tryyourbest!
3楼2015-07-01 14:02:32
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

vincent_hpax

铁杆木虫 (职业作家)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
PloS one Scientic Report 还有个什么RSC advance 神刊
博学 慎思 明辨 笃行
5楼2015-07-23 15:33:04
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
普通表情 高级回复 (可上传附件)
信息提示
请填处理意见