[编者按]近日在小木虫看到一篇题为“看完主编的意见后非常受打击，想跳楼”的帖子，讲了某作者论文收到了比较直接的拒稿函的故事。作者的反应比较强烈，也有很多跟帖反映了不同的看法。我摘录了一些跟帖。我想，这样的故事和经历也值得中央财经大学会计学院的学生认真思考和借鉴。做研究、写论文、投学刊，免不了遇到挫折，锻炼自身的心理素质和承受能力固然重要。不过，更重要和首要的是，尽量在一开始使自己免于陷入这种被动的情形，自己在投稿之前一定要慎之又慎，反复修改，切勿急躁。所谓欲速则不达！
看完主编的意见后非常受打击，想跳楼
作者: zwghuochetou 发布日期: 2008-05-04
Dear Prof. xxx,
A Principal Editor has evaluated your manuscript titled Effect of xxxxxxx. and I regret to inform you that, based on the comments, it will not be possible to further consider your manuscript for publication in Journal of Materials Research. The comments of the editor are enclosed for your consideration. I hope the information provided by the editor will be helpful in future studies.
Sincerely,
Dr. Gordon Pike
Associate Editor, JMR
Principal Editor Comments for the Author:
I have read this manuscript and think it is of very poor quality. First of all, the xxx system has been characterized in detail for the past xxxxx
and is a model xxxxx system. The microstructure and mechanical properties including effects of prior strain etc have all been characterized in detail by many researchers. So there is nothing new here.
Next, these authors are drawing poor conclusions based on poor experiments (their bright field TEM analysis using multi-beam is appalling!) It is well known that xxxx is a plate-shaped precipitate! Any beginning book in metallurgy (like Ashby's Introduction to Materials Science) will verify this. Yet, the authors refer to it as xxxx. Then they calculate dimensions of the precipitates based on projected 2D images without caring for crystallographic orientations or g-vectors in the image. THey talk about xxxx being present or absent without adopting 2-beam conditions!! There are 3 variants of this precipitate due to cube-on-cube relationships and no attention is given to anything like this. THen they talk of growth based on xxxxx when all of this can be artifacts of projection and there is no discussion of error bars on measurements. Single xxxxx curves are compared and a point is made of elongations varying betweenxxxx etc and these are all well within scatter, especially in xxxx where grain boundary precipitates will participate in stress concentration and crack nucleation (There has to be a lot of xxxxx in xxxxx).
I could go on and on but see no point. I do not want to waste reviewers time with this kind of paper.
作者: Comoflying 发布日期: 2008-05-04
如果这点都受不了，以后就别投了
别人给的意见需要仔细考虑的，而不是只在那里难过
黎明前是黑暗，挺挺就过来了，偶一篇都拒了好几次都没有放弃，坚持就是胜利
作者: atian 发布日期: 2008-05-04
总的说来这种文章真的不应该投出去！！！
现在好多期刊都公认中国人投的文章总的质量不高！如果不是质量太差，编辑不会说的如此刻薄，责任完全在你自己，我强烈建议你这篇文章不要再投出去，那会使你进入编辑黑名单的，影响你以后投稿声誉。同时也是希望不要因此让期刊编辑对所有来自中国的文章有偏见。
作者: sofu 发布日期: 2008-05-04
编辑很好，他没说句不适于本刊发表搪塞你，而让你仍以为你的文章很不错呢。相反写了这么多，他很负责。而且他并未提所谓地域之偏见，就事论事，很公正。
可能编辑就是你这个领域的专家。首先他认为没有创新点。他对你对文章的基础知识的缺乏、实验条件、实验设计、数据处理很不满。这些都是你要改的地方啊。虽然最后一句很伤人，但是他的意见很具体，不逊色于审稿人。与其等几个月听到相同的话，还不如现在就认真改！
我想，只要是好文章，公正的编辑是不会在意来自何处的。
作者: neuwen 发布日期: 2008-05-04
学了一句超级经典的话：
sth.have all been characterized in detail by many researchers. So there is nothing new here.
作者: t_liao 发布日期: 2008-05-04
我现在已有两篇J. Mater. Res.在手了。感觉这个杂志的编辑还是很尽责的。评语一般比较中肯。我想可能还是你的文章需要更大的改进。
作者: wittyboy 发布日期: 2008-05-04
个人认为还是回过头来重新审视一下你的试验设计，计划，
做之前要把相关领域的资料看的差不多，尤其是基本知识和前沿性的东西 |