看到曹建军的文章《地理学报》为何期刊？-此为拒投记，心里真的是百味杂陈，感慨万千，这两天陆续收到4封拒稿信，理由都是主题不符，请改投他刊。当然不是4篇文章,是两篇，一篇是中文的，一篇是外文的。中文的是我投的，投的是《科学学研究》，外文的是我的合作者投的，鲁索，大名鼎鼎，一般人不敢拒他的稿子的。知道这篇文章难以被人立马接受，所以，让他投。但半年之类连续投了三次，其中一次投给Scientometrics，审了四个月，主编应该算是鲁索的好朋友，鲁索做国际计量学会主席的时候，他是学会的秘书或者说财务总监之类。所以，不好立马拒绝，就送外审了。外审也说，如果不是鲁索这个大牛，还有之前在informetrics上发表了相同论题的文章，他就说我们投错刊了。后来我们又投了两个两个数学类刊，也被认为是主题不符，没送外审，直接拒了，意见我附后面。

而中文的，是我写的，投《科学学研究》之前，我心理是有些犹疑的，这犹疑不是觉得主题不符，而是因为这些年，我大多数写英文文章，国内刊除了约稿，没有主动投过国内刊，而仅有的两次中文投稿，都发表在《科学学研究》上了，我怕人们说我是不是和《科学学研究》有关系，投关系稿，所以，其实是不想再投的。但想来这是主题最为接近的一个刊。我这篇文章是研究科学结构的，科学结构应该是科学学研究的主要部分，加之，之前和《科学学研究》有过很好的合作关系，当时，我还是一个攻读博士的无名小卒的时候，就试着投了一次《科学学研究》，他们以极大的耐心帮助我完善和提高这个研究。这篇过程，我曾经写过一篇博客，《科学学研究》发文记，浏览量超过一万三千次了。而我这次写中文文章，主要是因为我要基于这些研究，给中国大学的学科建设工作提出政策建议，自然用中文，更容易被中国人接受一些。

我在这里要说的，不是《科学学研究》拒了我的稿子了，我还为其辩解。只是，学者学者，就是以研究为生的。而研究结果，总归是要在期刊上发表的。不是A期刊，就是B期刊。从目前国内的情况来看，大多数拒稿，都不会给出详尽的理由的。如果因为一次理由不充足或者审稿意见不完备的拒稿，就拒投此刊，估计国内就没有可以投的刊物了。

但给期刊提提意见，帮助他们改善出刊环节，合理采纳审稿意见，还是必要的。在实际生活中，在任何事情上，我们都要学会据理力争，而不是置气，弄得自己没有生存之地。

比方下面是几个外刊有关主题不符的拒稿信，中文的期刊如果能到这种程度，应该就能令人信服了。其实，期刊主题虽然有一定之规，但科学总是发展的，不会总局限于现在的主题，而是不断产生新的主题，在有关新的主题还没有相应的期刊创办之前，期刊原有的格局应该是新的主题有一定的包容性。比方我的那篇外文文章，是当时鲁索让我做的博士论文的主题，先是Leo Egghe做了一个设想，然后交给鲁索，恰好我开始做博士，就又交给我，我埋头做了四五年，留下近200页的手稿，放在那里至今没有发表。15年过后，去年捡拾起来，重新做。鲁索拿给Egghe看的时候，Egghe都忘了他曾经有这个看法，去年STI会议上碰到Egghe,恰好我们这篇投给了Journal of informetrics.他是这个刊物的创办人，刚刚退下来，交给了现任主编Ludo。他们两个人在那里谈论这篇文章，说他如何从15年前的记忆里把这篇文章打捞出来……这篇文章审稿意见其实也说这篇文章和这个期刊主题不符，但审稿者说，我验算了所有的公式，公式没有错误，而且，文章逻辑推理没有错，结论也成立，他们不知道这篇文章和我们这个领域有何关系，但可能这本期刊是唯一能够发表这篇文章的地方。所以，主编就接受了。这当然和通讯作者是前主编有关，但如果没有关系，就不应该给新的研究论题一个发表的空间吗？

我们这篇文章是测度网络的支配力的。之前没有这方面的研究，数学不是很复杂，但设计很精巧，很有意思。我们一开始就不知道这篇文章适合那个刊物，我们只能一个一个地试，科学计量学界因为鲁索这个大牛，曾考虑了，但我们最终也没能将我们的结果bend our paper to bepublishable in this journal. 所以，我们只能试试数学刊了，数学刊也拒绝了，现在我们准备投社会数学方法的刊物，因为觉得社会学可能都支配力会感兴趣吧，但Who knows？

Dear Dr.XX,

We have received the reports from our advisors on your manuscript, "Dynamic aspects of domination networks", which you submitted to Scientometrics.

Based on the advice received, I feel that your manuscript could be reconsidered for publication should you be prepared to incorporate major revisions.  When preparing your revised manuscript, you are asked to carefully consider the reviewer comments which are below, and submit a list of responses to the comments. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript by 29 Apr 2017

With kind regards,

Wolfgang Glänzel, PhD

Editor in Chief Scientometrics

COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR:

Reviewer #1: This is a highly technical paper on dynamic network restructuring, however without any clear aspect for or application in scientometrics. The word itself, or indeed any related words are not coming up in the paper. Nevertheless the topic is quite interesting and the ideas are relevant in themselves. The paper is also well structured and well written.

Only it has, in its current form, little to do with anything this journal is about, in my understanding. The main reason I am not tempted to say right away that this is just the wrong journal, that clearly there is a documented relationship, and even co-authorship with an eminent protagonist of scientometrics. My suggestions are straightforward then. An application in keyword networks or citation networks or anything with relevance to the field must be found to grant publication in this journal.

Besides, to also soften the inherently abstract treatment of the topic, I suggest to add an animation (as online supporting material made available via a link). Animations are wonderful tools for dealing with dynamic networks as they directly grasp the central element of dynamics, time. Tools exist for the scholarly presentation of animations of dynamic networks (eg. by Skye Bender-Moll and others). Even beyond, network mesasures for dominance can be directly represented as graph "colors" both in the visual and in the rigorous mathematical sense, and hence invite a treatment of animated colored networks - perhaps with even a still image inserted in the paper.

Finally, and perhaps more surprisingly, I can also imagine a strong connection with the application area of terrorist networksunderstood as workflows or "value chains", as in the work of Toth, N., Gulyás, L., Legendi, R. O., Duijn, P., Sloot, P. M., & Kampis, G. (2013). The importance of centralities in dark network value chains. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 222(6), 1413-1439. (Removing or inserting a key player etc. Not that this connection strengthens the scientometric potential of the paper.) In any case I strongly believe the authors should make a major effort to bend their paper to be publishable in this journal. Applied Mathematical Modelling主编很坦率地说出自己的决定

Dear Dr. XX,

We have now looked through your paper, prior to assigning referees. After careful consideration we have decided that we cannot pursue the review process and that we should reject the paper at this stage.

The key reason for the decision is that your paper does not clearly fall within the scope of this research journal, which focuses on the mathematical modelling of real-world problems in engineering, industrial and environmental systems. As such I formally release you to submit your work to a more appropriate journal. I know you will be disappointed by this response but I should nevertheless like to thank you for considering Applied Mathematical Modelling as a location for your work.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Johann (Hans) SienzEditor in

ChiefApplied Mathematical Modelling

Applied Mathematics and Computation很委婉地假借他人之口说出拒稿

Dear Dr. XX,

Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received.  You will see that they are advising against publication of your work.  Therefore I must reject it. I append the reviewers' comments below.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

Yours sincerely,

T.E. Simos

Editor-in-Chief Applied Mathematics and Computation

Reviewers' comments: Thank you for submitting the paper to AMC. Let underline that AMC is promoting papers which are a combination of both strong mathematical (theoretical) results and strong computational (numerical) results. Moreover, AMC is very selective (less than 8% of submissions are considered for possible publication). Unfortunately, we are not convinced that the contribution is strong enough for publication in AMC.> For further assistance, please visit our customer support site at http://help.elsevier.com/app/answers/list/p/7923 Here you can search for solutions on a range of topics, find answers to frequently asked questions and learn more about EES via interactive tutorials. You will also find our 24/7 support contact details should you need any further assistance from one of our customer support representatives.

Thank you for submitting the paper to AMC.Let underline that AMC is promoting papers which are a combination of bothstrong mathematical (theoretical) results and strong computational (numerical)results. Moreover, AMC is very selective (less than 8% of submissions areconsidered for possible publication). Unfortunately, we are not convinced thatthe contribution is strong enough for publication in AMC.