标签归档:论文

科研期刊论文审稿指南

peer-review

科技文章投稿人数一般会大大多于审稿人数,因此,许多文章投稿人并不太了解审稿的标准。如能了解期刊的审稿指南建议,对撰写学术文章也定有益处,从而提高学术文章的写作水平,增加投稿接受发表机会。下面是Elsevier的审稿人审稿建议指南:

Depending upon the journal, you will be asked to evaluate the article on a number of criteria. Some journals provide detailed guidance others do not, but normally you would be expected to evaluate the article according to the following:

Originality

Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the article adhere to the journal’s standards? Is the research question an important one? In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might be helpful to think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in? Is it in the top 25% of papers in this field? You might wish to do a quick literature search using tools such as Scopus to see if there are any reviews of the area. If the research has been covered previously, pass on references of those works to the editor.

Structure

Is the article clearly laid out? Are all the key elements (where relevant) present: abstract, introduction, methodology, results, conclusions? Consider each element in turn:

  • Title: Does it clearly describe the article?
  • Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article? Where graphical abstracts and/or highlights are included, please check the content and if possible make suggestions for improvements. Follow these links for more information on graphical abstracts and highlights.
  • Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors’ findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es) and the general experimental design or method.
  • Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
  • Results: This is where the author(s) should explain in words what he/she/they discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.
  • Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
  • Language: If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, while it may make it more difficult to understand the science, you do not need to correct the English. You should bring this to the attention of the editor, however.

Finally, on balance, when considering the whole article, do the figures and tables inform the reader, are they an important part of the story? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they consistent, e.g. bars in charts are the same width, the scales on the axis are logical.

Previous Research

If the article builds upon previous research does it reference that work appropriately? Are there any important works that have been omitted? Are the references accurate?

Ethical Issues

  • Plagiarism: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible.
  • Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor.
  • Other ethical concerns: For medical research, has confidentiality been maintained? Has there been a violation of the accepted norms in the ethical treatment of animal or human subjects? If so, then these should also be identified to the editor.

SCI期刊文章投稿状态简介

很多作者有这样的经历,投了稿,可是稿件到底在什么状态还是不清楚。有时稿件投了几个月,也不知道到底怎么样了。虽然现在很多杂志提供网上查询,还有的会给作者回信,但是还是有很多术语不知道什么意思。所有我整理了这个投稿术语的名词解释,以便大家心中有底。

1. Submitted to Journal 刚提交的状态。

2. Manuscript received by Editorial Office 就是你的文章到了编辑手里了,证明投稿成功。

3. With editor 如果在投稿的时候没有要求选择编辑,就先到主编那,主编会分派给别的编辑,这当中就会有另两个状态:

3.1. Awaiting Editor Assignment 指派责任编辑Editor assigned是把你的文章分给一个编辑处理了。

3.2. technical check in progress 检查你的文章符不符合期刊投稿要求。

3.3. Editor Declined Invitation 如果编辑接手处理了就会邀请审稿人了。

4. 随后也会有2种状态:

4.1. Decision Letter Being Prepared 就是编辑没找审稿人就自己决定了,那根据一般经验,对学生来说估计会挂了:

1)英文太差,编辑让修改。

2)内容太差,要拒了。除非大牛们直接被接收。

4.2. Reviewer(s) invited 找到审稿人了,就开始审稿。

5. Under review 这应该是一个漫长的等待。当然前面各步骤也可能很慢的,要看编辑的处理情况。如果被邀请审稿人不想审,就会decline,编辑会重新邀请别的审稿人。

6. Required Reviews Completed 审稿人的意见已上传,审稿结束,等待编辑决定。

7. Evaluating Recommendation 评估审稿人的意见,随后你将收到编辑给你的 decision。

8. Minor revision/Major revision这个时候可以稍微庆祝一下了,问题不大了,因为有修改就有可能。具体怎么改就不多说了,谦虚谨慎是不可少的。

9. Revision Submitted to Journal 又开始了一个循环。

10. Accepted 恭喜了

11. Transfer copyright form 签版权协议

12. uncorrected proof 等待你校对样稿

13. In Press, Corrected Proof 文章在印刷中,且该清样已经过作者校对

14. Manuscript Sent to Production 排版

15 in production 出版中

另外的一些常见英文词汇:

minor revision 小修,这个基本上是接收了,但是要按要求做一些修改。

major revision 大修,文章要做大的修改,文章要增加或是删除部分内容。这个修改后接收的几率为50%。

camera-ready paper 可以付印的正式稿件。

graphical abstract 图文接要一个能够突出你文章特色的图,配上一两句话说明。

running head 就是发表文章里显示在你页眉上的(一般论文偶数页显示RUNNING HEAD,奇数页显示论文的前几位作者的英文名缩写),一般是用一个短语(几个单词,别太长了)根括你论文的主要内容。

Response to reviewers 对reviewers的疑问point-to-point回答即可。先把reviewer的问题,还要有指出的小的文字错误的部分copy下来,然后逐一回答。

reviewer 1

question 1 …XX………

answer:……… (pageXX, LineXX )

question …XX………

answer:……… (pageXX, LineXX )

文字修改也一样

*******(原来的意见)

corrected ******((pageXX, LineXX ))

目的就是让他一眼就看出来你改了,改在哪里,如何改的。