d*****s 发帖数: 647 | 1 投稿到一个IF>10的杂志,经过De nonvo,Major,Minor,持续快一年,最后Reviewer
都没有问题,推荐Ready for Publication,但Editor说it does not have sufficient
priority for publication,把稿子给拒了。
感觉Editor特别操蛋,既然达不到priority ,还要我们来回修改4次干嘛,大家有没有
碰到类似情况的?这种情况下该怎么办,接受事实?抗议成功的可能性大吗? |
g*c 发帖数: 68 | 2 赶快投BBRC,没准Editor的稿子已经在印刷中了呢。 |
A******y 发帖数: 2041 | 3 Science and Nature do that.
Reviewer
sufficient
【在 d*****s 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 投稿到一个IF>10的杂志,经过De nonvo,Major,Minor,持续快一年,最后Reviewer : 都没有问题,推荐Ready for Publication,但Editor说it does not have sufficient : priority for publication,把稿子给拒了。 : 感觉Editor特别操蛋,既然达不到priority ,还要我们来回修改4次干嘛,大家有没有 : 碰到类似情况的?这种情况下该怎么办,接受事实?抗议成功的可能性大吗?
|
k****y 发帖数: 26 | 4 曝光一下是哪个牛刊。这个肯定要申述一下吧。
:Science and Nature do that.
: |
d*****s 发帖数: 647 | 5 European Heart Journal
不知道是不是对来自中国文章的歧视?
【在 k****y 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 曝光一下是哪个牛刊。这个肯定要申述一下吧。 : : :Science and Nature do that. : :
|
c*********l 发帖数: 1065 | 6 靠,真是无奇不有,这理由。。
Reviewer
sufficient
【在 d*****s 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 投稿到一个IF>10的杂志,经过De nonvo,Major,Minor,持续快一年,最后Reviewer : 都没有问题,推荐Ready for Publication,但Editor说it does not have sufficient : priority for publication,把稿子给拒了。 : 感觉Editor特别操蛋,既然达不到priority ,还要我们来回修改4次干嘛,大家有没有 : 碰到类似情况的?这种情况下该怎么办,接受事实?抗议成功的可能性大吗?
|
e**********0 发帖数: 502 | 7 Re
【在 g*c 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 赶快投BBRC,没准Editor的稿子已经在印刷中了呢。
|
m******g 发帖数: 3924 | |
H*****e 发帖数: 120 | 9 I do not believe that what they claimed is the real reason. My guess is
that there is something behind it. As an editor, I can read a "confidential
" section to editor only, which is not common in my experience. But I did
have a few cases that reviewers questioned the quality of the work. I need
to draw a conclusion based on that. As a reviewer, I also once questioned a
study and asked more control experiments regarding to the method. The
responses from the authors were the "perfect" answer. It was too good to me
. So I wrote my only time "confidential" section to editor; then we had a
discussion on the phone about it. In that case, we draw a conclusion that
we are not at the position to judge beyond the data provided. However, it
could go the other way if I insisted. The journal that you mentioned is not
the top one. There is no priority issue in my opinion unless you send a
cancer paper to this heart journal. |
l****a 发帖数: 179 | 10 欧洲的杂志都奇葩
【在 d*****s 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : European Heart Journal : 不知道是不是对来自中国文章的歧视?
|
d*****s 发帖数: 647 | 11 谢谢您的解释,看来是有些评委私下对编辑说了一些不好的话。但是我们并不知道,我
们能Appeal一下吗,该怎么Appeal?
confidential
need
a
me
【在 H*****e 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : I do not believe that what they claimed is the real reason. My guess is : that there is something behind it. As an editor, I can read a "confidential : " section to editor only, which is not common in my experience. But I did : have a few cases that reviewers questioned the quality of the work. I need : to draw a conclusion based on that. As a reviewer, I also once questioned a : study and asked more control experiments regarding to the method. The : responses from the authors were the "perfect" answer. It was too good to me : . So I wrote my only time "confidential" section to editor; then we had a : discussion on the phone about it. In that case, we draw a conclusion that : we are not at the position to judge beyond the data provided. However, it
|