24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前主题已经存档。

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

zjults

铜虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 327.4
散金: 112
红花: 1
帖子: 265
在线: 82.9小时
虫号: 499048
注册: 2008-02-06
专业: 力学中的基本问题和方法

[交流] 我想催稿，告诉如果编辑打定主意要拒我的稿，赶紧拒，别玩我

去年六月投的physica d,12月得到拒稿消息。
其中一个审稿人只写了三句话就把我拒了:'The suggested paper has a lot of mistakes.
Transformations 2.3 -> 2.5-2.8 -> 2.9-22.10 are not correct.
The manuscript cannot be published in the journal.'
抗辩之后，编辑给了一个修改机会（ rebuttal revision),我给编辑举了一个例子，他认为'I also emphasized that the example you sent me informally gives me the impression that your point may be valid and correct.'
1月26日提交了修改稿，2月3日with editor, 3月8日才进入修改稿的under review

我想催稿，告诉如果编辑打定主意要拒我的稿，赶紧拒，别玩我.
编辑以前说：‘
I can offer the following solution. You will be allowed to re-submit your fully re-written manuscript via a special "rebuttal" procedure.’
这么长时间才进入under review, 我真怕再找以前的审稿人

[ Last edited by zjults on 2009-3-16 at 15:36 ]

回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

限项规定已经有6人回复
西南交通大学国家级人才团队2026年博士研究生招生（考核制）—机械、材料、力学方向已经有3人回复
救命帖已经有6人回复
英文综述是否需要润色及查重已经有5人回复
为什么nbs上溴没有产物点出现呢已经有9人回复
招博士已经有3人回复
最失望的一年已经有18人回复

1楼 2008-08-28 14:48:47

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

zjults

铜虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 327.4
散金: 112
红花: 1
帖子: 265
在线: 82.9小时
虫号: 499048
注册: 2008-02-06
专业: 力学中的基本问题和方法

据了，不过经过抗辩和解释得到一个修改的机会. 编辑回信如下：
Dear xxx,

I have discussed the case of your manuscript and its evaluation with the leadership of Physica D. I also emphasized that the example you sent me informally gives me the impression that your point may be valid and correct. Still, we must recognize the fact that the reviewers were respected members of the community, even you referred to some of them in your manuscript. All this means that those prospective readers of the journal who are familiar with the subject could not understand the main message of your paper - and this is not necessarily their fault.

I can offer the following solution. You will be allowed to re-submit your fully re-written manuscript via a special "rebuttal" procedure. You will receive detailed information on this through the elsevier editorial system soon. Please, take into account the comments of Reviewers #1 and #2 in the sense that try to help the readers to avoid similarly false conclusuions based on your work. Take special care for introducing your idea in a simple, short, but still understandable way - just like you did with the simple example in your informal email to me. Also, emphasize your basic idea in the abstract and also in the Conclsuions clearly. You may also have to ask for help regarding language problems.

Also, please accept the fact that the special procedure you are allowed to use does not mean that your paper will be accepted - it is still pending, and apart of its scientific value it must be well written, too, in order to achieve an efficient way of information and knowledge transmission within the community. It is not easy to publish in PhysD, authors may complain about the rigorous requirements and reviews, but the established rank of the journal certifies the strict policy of the editorial board.

With best regards,
xxx