waterlilyqd的个人博客分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/waterlilyqd 翻译--编辑--信息分析从平凡中见神奇! Journal of Mountain Science科学网博客

博文

稿件初审审什么? 精选

已有 11822 次阅读 2016-9-13 17:52 |个人分类:编辑杂谈|系统分类:论文交流|关键词:稿件初审,initial,review| review, initial, 稿件初审

How to make initial review?


很多期刊的稿件初审都是由编辑部的人员来做,投稿到Journal of Mountain Science 的文章大部分由数十位相应学科方向的编委和科学编辑做初审,目的是从大量的投稿中筛选出真正有价值的文章,再送同行外审,以便尽可能地减少后期的无效劳动。然而,从返回的初审意见来看,少部分初审意见并不是很尽人意: 有的一句话不写,直接推荐送同行外审(即便是文章very excellent, 我也希望初审专家能够让我知道这一点);有的只有一句话,文章无创新性,或者文章写作很差(我希望能够看到具体的意见)。

初审虽然不同于同行外审,不一定要给出非常具体、非常详细的意见,如果是退稿或者是请作者修改,也得让作者明白自己的文章的不足在哪里,以便能够进一步改进。

个人认为,初审应从以下几个方面入手:

1.稿件是否符合期刊的刊稿范围:如果不是,提出具体建议:This manuscript is outside the scope of the journal. The author is suggested to submit this article to these journals............

This manuscript falls with the scope of the journal. However the study results only can be used to guide local practice, it is more suitable for a local journal instead of the international journal.

2.研究是否有意义:从题目和摘要快速地了解文章的研究内容是否有新意。

3.稿件是否符合期刊的标准规范:如果不符合期刊的标准规范,请作者按照期刊的格式重新撰写。 This manuscript didnot follow the journal's guidelines in Figure preparation, literation citation, reference format, ...... Please refer to the guidelines at http://jms.imde.ac.cn/for-authors.

4.数据是否充分:做了哪些试验,得到了什么样的结果,通过阅读题目、摘要、方法、结果、结论,看提供的数据是否能够充分说明文章要达到的目的。

5. 方法是否清楚明了:作者采用什么方法,怎样得到的结果。如果作者在这部分有意疏忽,则有可能被退稿。

6. 图表:图表的呈现是否恰当、美观。有些文章没有侧重点,一下放几十个图,有些文章图片质量差,让人一看心里就不舒服。即使文章内容不错,如果图的质量较差,我们会要求作者修改后再投。

7.写作问题:文字是否流畅、逻辑清晰,有些初学写作科技论文的作者往往东拼西凑,感觉思维跳跃,前后衔接不上。另外,文章中出现大量的语法问题和拼写错误往往直接导致一篇文章立即被退稿。

8. 文献引用:文献引用最能看出一个作者的功底和认真程度。是否只引用本国文献?是否遗漏重要的学术论著?是否大部分抄袭某篇已发表的文章的参考文献?最后这一条通过我们期刊的稿件系统中嵌入的Crosscheck防抄袭系统可以检测出来。



下面附一篇一位海外科学编辑的初审意见以供参考:

There is no doubt that the authors have undertaken significant field and desk based work to advance knowledge, and herein should be congratulated for their endeavour. However major revisions are recommended to generate a deeper and better articulated product in order that the wider community can engage with this:

1. Linkage to the Mountain arena, in order to better align with the journal purpose. Whilst the study regions have mountains and adjoining areas, the link is diffuse as written in the manuscript. A basic example of this- figure 1- doesn't show mountain locations written in the text
2. English language- there are mis-spellings, missing words and fragmentary sentences are common
3. Whilst it does cite literature outside the Chinese academic context, it doesn't fully utilise the rich international literature on gully form, dynamics and management. It would be stronger for this. Further how can this research add to gully management solutions outside the study region- i.e. transference of knowledge/ tools?
4. Figures- text too small, and complex colour schemes
5. Tables- some poor formatting, and components (e.g. indices not explained)
6. Text generally- is prone to description/ listing, would benefit from greater quantification and explanation. Definition of the core focus black soil is vague- and this is central to this work.
7. Jump between method and results- the manuscript makes reference to array of analytical techniques, but jumps to result summaries.
8. Field sampling strategies- whilst very extensive, could explain justify further
9. Aims and objectives- are a little generic, could be more exact
10. Table 2- suggests all numbers are sums- this is not so, so and evolved structure would help
11. Section 2- explain top down and bottom up; methods is really a list so needs more depth; and could perhaps be integrated with section 3?


我对另一篇基于网格管理的农产品资源分布模型的稿件的初审意见:

This is a very interesting study. However we have to reject it for its possible publication in the Journal of Mountain Science based on the following reasons.
1. The study area in this paper does not have any relationship with mountains. It talks about the agricultural production distribution and the its simulation case study was conducted in Beijing.
2. The writing and language needs great work to improve. I found many grammar mistakes in word use.
3. The abstract is not well-written. The study purpose accounts for half of the words, however you didnot describe how you built the model (parameters used) and didnot give any concrete data to show the effectiveness of this model.
4. I suggest the author to submit the manuscript to Agricultural Review or Journal of Integrative Agriculture (http://www.chinaagrisci.com/index.html) after substantial revision.







投稿与审稿
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-314423-1002725.html

上一篇:COPE-Publication Ethics Audit
下一篇:韩国之行-首尔的新罗酒店

10 章雨旭 张启峰 王启云 彭真明 刘钢 铁永波 强涛 姚伟 翟远征 shenlu

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (11 个评论)

数据加载中...

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备14006957 )

GMT+8, 2019-10-21 13:10

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部