| 查看: 1664 | 回复: 7 | ||||
| 【奖励】 本帖被评价7次，作者dreamboat增加金币 6.5 个 | ||||
| 当前主题已经存档。 | ||||
[资源]
读稿和审稿遇到的常见问题 （转）
|
||||
|
看着不错 转来共享http://www.sciencenet.cn/bbs/showpost.aspx?id=28281 welcome to my blog! http://zhenmafudan.yculblog.com 很多投稿出去的文章都是可上可下的。往往退稿的时候，审稿人提了一堆意见，说退稿。但是大家想过没有？如果能事先预测到这些意见，根据这些意见修改好了再投出去，说不定能一举命中！俗话说，“与人方便就是与己方便”。我的要点是：自己在投稿前得好好修改文章，减少错误率才能让审稿人给与自己方便！本人为20多个国际杂志审过近百篇稿子，现在我来总结一些读稿和审稿遇到的常见问题。这些问题主要是写作方面的问题，而非具体的学术观点、学术论证对不对的问题。 1）标题不明确、太宽泛。好比说“Influence of Mixed Solvents on Growth Kinetics of Crystals”。这里，读者不知道作者用了什么混合溶剂，研究了什么晶体的生长。 2）摘要炒作概念，没有科学性的实质内容。读者看到的是云里雾里的概念，不清楚作者用什么方法研究了什么。 3）关键词太长，或者太宽泛，不是关键词。如the development of solid strong acids太长，应改为solid strong acids。再比如organic chemistry不能成为关键词，因为太宽泛，用organic chemistry来搜索文献，可以查到无数文献，因此丧失了关键词的作用。 4）引言一开始帽子扣得太大，扯得太远。比如有人研究一种新型吸附剂处理废水中的砷，便花了很大篇幅引述医学研究结果说砷对人体细胞有很大危害。其实这些都是常识，应该直奔主题。 5）引言没有突出新颖性，师出无名。读者不知道作者为什么要做这个工作，有什么新颖性，对后续基础研究和应用开发有什么价值。读者只看到作者为了做实验而做实验。 6）引言中没有正确的上下文。没有合理引用自己和别人相关工作，或者粗描淡写、一笔带过。于是，读者不知道作者的工作究竟是首次报道还是别人早就研究过很多次了，作者的可信度（credibility）受到了质疑。 7）引用文献不贴切，为了强调自己的新颖性故意把相关文献引用在角落里。比如一篇文章的卖点已经报到过了，作者故意不说这个事实，而是在角落里引用前人的关键文章来证明自己文章的一个小的结论（如谱峰的归属）。 8）有的地方明显没有引用文献，明显错误。如“It was reported that…”，句子的结尾却没有引文！ 9）引言没有章法，没有结构和层次。写了很多段，想到哪里写到哪里，有的一段话才一句话。 10）实验部份语焉不详，不可重复。比如说有的人写什么东西加到什么东西里面，却没说浓度是什么，加了多少，有无搅拌，搅拌时间是多少。 11）实验部份如实验记录本，每一段一行。读起来如武打小说书。 12）文章主体部分很长，明显可以分为几个部份，加上小标题，却没有这么做。 13）表述不清楚。说自己的结果和某文献不同，却不描述怎么不同。说自己的催化剂组分和别人催化剂组分不同，却不说清别人的催化剂组分是什么。说峰位置有区别，见某图，但不描述怎么不同，峰的归属是什么，说明了什么信息。 14）没有新意，重复别人已经报道过的东西。 15）没有科学内容，读起来如高中生的实验。如卖狗皮膏药、变戏法的。 16）没有洞察力和深邃的见解，只是描述现象、堆积数据，没有理论深度。 17）讨论和引言雷同，只是综述文献，没有自己提出的要点。 18）写文章到最后嘎然而止，没有客观分析本文的意义和局限性，没有前景展望，编辑就想：既然你的文章工作完整了，到此为之了，那么说，读者在这篇文章基础上没有东西可做了？也就是说这篇文章发表后不会被广泛引用了？既然发表这篇文章不能体高杂志的引用引子，那我编辑何必帮你呢？ 19）结论和摘要雷同。 20）杂志缩写错了，文章里有很多拼写和格式错误。英语不好。 读稿和审稿的方法学 Zhenmafudan @ 2008-08-24 00:33 我第一次成为国际刊物独立审稿人是在2003年。五年多来为二十多个杂志审了近百篇文章。刚开始当审稿人的时候，学习了The ACS Style Guide第二版，里面有大量著名化学专家关于如何审稿的介绍性文章（The ACS Style Guide第二版已经把这些内容去掉了）。审稿的好处在于锻炼自己critical thinking的能力。有了这种能力，自己就能用这种critical的眼光审视自己的稿件，这样自己投文章就更有把握。同时，稿子审得越多，编辑找自己越勤快，这说明自己的劳动和学术判断被承认，这样自己以后投稿就更加有credit了。 Making the Right Moves: A Practical Guide to Scientific Management, p. 182. As your relationships with journal editors develop, you may be asked to review manuscripts submitted by other scientists. Take the task seriously. Do the reviews throughly and promptly. If you don't have time or don't think you have the right expertise, let the editors know right away. They will not hold this against you. A late or weak review, however, could hurt your reputation with the editors. The benefits of serving as a reviewer are potentially great. Not only will you learn about others' research, you will improve your own critical skills and confirm your standing as a knowledgeable scientist in the eyes of the editors. You own future papers will be taken more seriously if you do good reviews. 给中国杂志投稿和给外国杂志投稿不大一样。有的催化文章投中国化学不中，投Journal of Molecular Catalysis A却能中。而有的美国化学会志两页快报投中国化学倒未必会中，因为审稿人看不懂。外国的催化杂志审稿偏重于总体印象，有时候审稿人对实验提不出意见，就说这篇文章没有趣、没有用，还没有达到该杂志的水平，建议投其它差的杂志。越是出名的审稿人，审起稿子越是高屋建瓴，评价该文章在该课题中的地位和意义，而很少死扣字句的错误。 下面我从一些摘录一下审稿人看什么。了解这些，即可以帮助自己成为合格的审稿人，又能促使写作者从审稿人角度挑剔的审视自己的文章，进行修改。 Communicating Science: A Practical Guide, Springer, p. 102. Before starting on your task, jot down your answers to a list of questions such as: 1) Is this the appropriate journal for publication? If not, can I suggest a better medium? 2) Is this paper significant/important? Why? Why not? 3) Is it comprehensive with respect to its subject matter? 4) Are there omissions? 5) Are there mistakes? Inaccuracies? 6) Is the work reproducible from the evidence provided? 7) Do some of the authors' assertations need to be qualified? 8) Does the paper conform to the high standards as previous contributions from the same group? 9) Is the writing clear and fluid? Can it be improved? How? 10) Are there mispellings? Typos? 11) Is the bibliography (reference) adequant? 12) Is the artwork necessary and complelling? 13) Is the title adequate? 14) Should the abstract be rewritten? 15) Can I suggest cuts in the manuscript? 16) How can I sum up in a sentence or two my overall assessment? The ACS Style Guide (Third Edition), p. 74. The entire manuscript should be read carefully and critically. Most reviewers read a manuscript more than once. Manuscripts should be rated on technical quality, significance of the work, importance to the research field, and adequacy of expression. Many reviewers divide their reviews into general comments and specific, detailed comments. In the general section, reviewers draw attention to both the strong and weak points of the manuscript, the concepts, the objectives, and the methods. Like an author writing a manuscript, reviewers should write reviews in a comprehensive but concise manner, addressing the questions presented below: Suggested Topics for A Peer Review 1) Are the methods (experimental section) adequately described and referenced? 2) Are there any unsupported conclusions? 3) Is there anything that is confusing or ambiguous? 4) Do figures and tables appropriately illustrate the data? 5) Is the introduction clear and informative? 6) Is either the introduction or discussion longer than necessary, and do they make sense in relation to the subject and the data? 7) Although the discussion is the appropriate place for speculation, is it excessive? 8) Are the appropriate references cited? Are the references accurate? 9) Is English usage and grammar adequate? 10) Is the length of the manuscript unwarranted? Suggestions on how a manuscript can be shortened are appreciated by editors. 11) Is the use of color warrented? Printing color is a significant expense for the publisher. Essential Skills for Science and Technology, Oxford University Press, p. 161. Critical analysis 1) Is the article appropriate for its target audience? 2) Does the article build on prior research? 3) Does the article reflect a good knowledge or previous literature in the field? 4) Does the authors identify the problem or issue clearly and explain its relevance? 5) Did the authors choose the best research method and approach? Was it executed properly? 6) Were the methodology, findings, and reasons for their conclusions logically and clearly explained? 7) Do the authors make appropriate comparisons to similar events, cases, or occurances? 8) Are the ideas really new or do the authors merely repackage old ideas with new names? 9) Were there adequate and appropriate examples and illustrations? 10) Do the authors discuss everything they promise in the abstract, introduction, and outline? 11) Does the article make a contribution to its field? If not, in what way should it have made a contribution and why didn't it? 12) What are the article's strengths and weaknesses? 13) What are its limitations and boundaries? 14) Did it discuss all the important aspects in its domain thoroughly? 15) Overall, how complete and thorough a job did the authors do? Did they justify their conclusions adequately? Did they provide enough background information to make their work comprehensible? 16) How confident are you in the article's results? Is it convincing? 以上我摘录了审稿人的思考问题。应该说上述问题比较“文”，比如文章的布局和思路等。审稿人更多问“理”的问题，如具体实验细节不清楚等。写审稿意见首先要写本文用什么方法研究了什么？新颖性和重要性如何？强项和弱项是什么？最大的问题是什么？推荐不推荐发表？在论述主要问题、主要矛盾以后，给出其它一条一条的小的修改意见。如果审稿人的审稿意见只有一句“很好，值得发表”，或者“不好，应该退稿”，而不讲出具体理由，那么这样的审稿意见可信性就降低了，给编辑的印象也不好，说明审稿人没有仔细看。好的审稿意见不但给出总体评价，而且给出具体修改意见，指出第几页第几行。这说明审稿人仔细地看了文章。 |
回复此楼» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 超级电容器 | Sci 写作，投稿，发表 |
» 猜你喜欢
281求调剂（0805）
已经有23人回复
-
265求调剂
已经有9人回复
-
279分求调剂 一志愿211
已经有10人回复
-
招收调剂硕士
已经有12人回复
-
296求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
招收博士1-2人
已经有3人回复
-
085700资源与环境308求调剂
已经有11人回复
-
274求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
290求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
一志愿西南交通 专硕 材料355 本科双非 求调剂
已经有4人回复
2楼2008-08-30 22:59:54
4楼2008-09-01 08:37:21
5楼2008-09-01 10:46:18
简单回复
2008-08-31 19:58
回复
谢谢分享
