我在搞清楚未知化合物结构和反应机理之后，受一篇Org. Lett.的启发，得到了比该文献更好的实验结果。我再一次仔细查阅文献，发现在20年前就有人报道相关的反应，只是当时采用了天然氨基酸或糖作为起始原料，经多步反应得到这类化合物，但是价格昂贵，路线复杂。因此，我认为我的这篇文章是使用了新的方法学，解决了老的问题，适合发表在Org. Lett.之类二级学科最好的杂志，但是也很有可能发表在J. Am. Chem. Soc.或者 Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.上。为了保险起见，我以Org. Lett的格式写了稿子，交给了老板，老板让我试试投JACS，我认为Angew Chem更合适，中的机会大一点，就以Angew. Chem的形式交给了老板，并告诉老板，如果评审推荐发表在Chem. Eurp J.这类IF在5.0以上的是可以接受的。

但是遗憾的是在投稿三个礼拜后收到Angew .Chem.副主编的拒稿信，理由是一个评审认为我们的文章“important but too specialized”，并推荐发表在EJOC这个只有３．０影响因子，在我们组认为是“垃圾”的杂志上。老板怕我心理上受不了，也没有告诉我结果，直接给副主编写了信，说希望再找一个评审帮我看看，再作决定，并告诉副主编，我们之前投过的一篇Angew Chem，评审意见也是一个“highly important ”一个“ important but too specialized”最后在JACS发表的事例。副主编收到信后，转给主编，主编回信告诉我们任何稿子都有权利申诉，但是必须指出评审意见中有事实上错误的意见，并要求我们予以反驳，否则一般不予考虑。

在收到主编的email后，我按照老板的意思写了反驳意见，并举了在这个实验过程中不成功的实例，告诉那个评审，化学实验并非都是可预测的，一些理论上可预见的结果，实际上并不一定成功。并按照他的要求补齐了我之前漏掉的数据。在递交反驳意见后一个月，我们收到主编的信件，这一次主编又找了两个新的评审，那两个评审在通读了我的稿子和反驳意见后，认为我的稿子适合在Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.上发表，原来拒我稿子的审稿人过于苛刻，并要求我们做一些minor revision. 这样四位审稿人，三位同意发表，一个拒绝，主编最终决定录用我的稿子。

就这样经历了投稿，拒稿，反驳，再录用，我的文章最后终于在Angew .Chem. Int. Ed.上发表，这也是我们组两年来第二次在Angew. Chem.上申诉成功的例子了。在6月回国的时候，我的在复旦的师弟也告诉我复旦化学系最近也在Angew. Chem.上成功申诉一篇文章的经历。

写这个事例是想告诉大家如果对自己的实验结果有自信的话，遇到不公平的审稿人，还是可以尝试一下申诉，有时候真的就成功了。

附与副主编，主编的email信件：

1）拒稿

Dear Professor ****,

       Thank you for your submission of 05.03.2009 and for the above-mentioned manuscript. We are unfortunately unable to accept your manuscript for publication in ANGEWANDTE CHEMIE.

        Since considerably more communications are received than we can possibly publish in the limited available space, a selection process has to be applied. In the course of this the opinions of the referees are a prime consideration but an article is also assessed as to whether it is of great significance for the development of a topical area of chemistry.

        Our guidelines for referees (see www.angewandte.org, "For Referees") outlines the criteria referees should use in deciding on the importance of a manuscript. These criteria are also those used by the editors in deciding on the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript. Manuscripts that narrowly fail to meet the standards required for Angewandte Chemie, may, AFTER REVISION, be accepted by one of Angewandte's sister journals, often without the use of additional referees. (If you decide for this option, please explain in the accompanying letter which changes you have made and, more importantly, which not, giving reasons why not.)

          I am very sorry that I cannot give a more positive reply in a case such as this one. We have been receiving so many communications lately that we can almost only accept those manuscripts which receive clear-cut positive referee reports.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Haymo Ross

Deputy Editor

第一个同意我发表的评审人意见，给的评价比较高，估计是老板的朋友。

Referee 1:

Importance: B) highly important

Hypotheses Yes/No: Yes

Appropriate Length: Yes

Different Journal:

Recommend Acceptance: B) Yes, with minor alterations

Referee Letter:

       The paper presented by **** and co-workers can be included within the highly important papers since the work represents application of a well known process (intramolecular dipolar cycloaddition) to a previously prepared system via organocatalysis. Thus, the whole process can be seen as a new protocol for preparing novel complex molecules in a very efficient way. The high efficiency of the process in terms of chemical yield and enantioselectivey increases the importance of this new process in which four stereogenic centers are created. Because of these reasons the paper deserves publication in Angew. Chem. as a communication.

         Some minor modification should be made concerning preparation of compund 4a (which does not appear in the manuscript; maybe in Scheme 4). This compound (if it is that in which the N-O bond has been cleaved) is presented as a non-natural aminoacid. Although it is true that the compound is an aminoacid, such a designation seems to be not very adequate for such a complex molecule. The same is valid for the comment included in the final paragraph that should be rewritten to avoid presenting compound 4a as a

target instead of a sample concerning further manipulation of molecules.

第二个评审人的意见，简直把我的文章说的一文不值，我估计是老板的仇人。如他推荐我发表在《欧洲化学》，我就接受了，虽然我更愿意发表在Org. Lett.上。

Referee 2:

Importance: D) important but too specialized

Hypotheses Yes/No: Yes

Appropriate Length: Yes

Different Journal: Eur. J. Org. Chem.

Recommend Acceptance: D) No

Referee Letter:

          ***** and coworkers present a tandem process for the synthesis of bicyclic isoxazolidines. The reaction developed herein takes place in two steps, starting with an enantioselective amine-catalyzed

Michael addition of a functionalized aldehyde to a nitroalkane. Next, in a one-pot operation, N-hydroxyaniline is added to the reaction mixture which condenses with the free formyl group present at the Michael adduct and proceeds to react intramolecularly in a [3+2] cycloaddition process with the a,b-unsaturated ester moiety which was introduced at the starting functionalized aldehyde. Compounds have been correctly characterized and good evidence of purity (diasteomeric and enantiomeric) is provided in the

supporting information.

          Although the work appears to have been carried out with care and high yields of the final compounds are obtained in a reaction which proceeds with an exceptional degree of diastereo- and enantioselectivity, I think that this manuscript is not suitable for publication in Angew. Chem. for

the reasons outlined bellow:

1.- The stereochemical control is achieved in the first Michael reaction between the starting aldehyde and a nitroalkene, using a catalyst and conditions which are already well-known to be extremely efficient in this

transformation. In addition, the second step consists on an intramolecular [3+2] cycloaddition, which proceeds without participation of the catalyst and therefore, I think that it is a reaction that one may expect to proceed satisfactorily. In my opinion, the reaction design and the chemistry presented herein lacks of enough elements of novelty to justify publication in a general chemistry journal, although I feel that this work could be the subject of a nice publication in a more specialized journal.

2.- The reaction produces a very specific product, the only variable is the R-group on the b-carbon of the nitroalkene, which somewhat limits the potential impact of this process. In addition, the substrate scope is

limited to the use of aromatic nitroalkenes and no example has been provided which indicates that this transformation might be applicable to aliphatic nitroalkenes.

           For all these reasons I think that this manuscript is not suitable to be published in Angewandte Chemie but it might be publishable in a specific organic chemistry journal such as Eur. J. Org. Chem.

2）老板给副主编写信希望再找一个评审看看，然后再作决定。

Dear Dr. Ross,

         Thanks for your email.

          I am sorry to learn that our manuscropt was rejected based on the comments "important but too specialized" from just one referee, as you may see the first referee ranked it as "highly important" with minor alterations. This reminded me of our another manuscript (sent to Angew. Chem. in October

2008) rejected under the quite similar conditions. And I would like to let you know that the work was already published as communication in JACS recently.

           Since there are only a very few processes (reported) which may be used to control the stereo- selective outcome with up to 5 chiral centers, I still think that our one pot strategy for generation of the bicyclic compounds with the control of 5 chiral carbons is highly valuable and the manuscript is very suitable to the readership of Angew. Chem. (a 4page-manuscript). As such, I would like to ask if you could send it to a third referee for a review and then reconsider your decision? Thank you very much for your help!

           I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

*******

3）副主编转给主编，主编希望我们找出评审意见中具有事实性错误的意见，并给予反驳。

Dear Professor ****,

          Many thanks for your letter of March 26 in which you asked whether it is possible for me to reconsider my earlier decision to reject your above-mentioned manuscript.

          In principle every author of a rejected paper at Angewandte Chemie has the right to appeal! For this it is necessary to submit a revised (or the original) manuscript and to present a rebuttal to the referees' arguments. It certainly helps when an author sees major factual errors in the referees' statements. If the whole case is only a matter of different opinions I recommend that one does not appeal.

          The rebuttal and the revised version (if appropriate) are then sent to the referee(s) whose recommendation(s) caused the rejection. If necessary the whole case can be presented additionally to a court-of-appeal referee. When all statements are available, the editor makes the final decision.

            If you send a revised version, please highlight the changes made during the revision by giving the text a yellow background.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. P. Gölitz

Editor

4）我写了反驳意见，指出评审中错误的观点，并补齐了我遗漏的实验数据。由于涉及化合物结构，不方便上船，就不附了。

5）一个月后，主编来信告知我们决定录用我们的稿子，并附了原来拒稿评审的新的意见和另外新找的两个评审的意见。

Dear Professor ****,

       Thank you for your submission of 05.03.2009. We are pleased to inform you that the above-mentioned manuscript has been accepted for publication in ANGEWANDTE CHEMIE.

       However, we request that you revise your manuscript taking into consideration the enclosed comments from three of our referees. It would be helpful if you were to prepare the final version of the manuscript in accordance with the checklist in the attached file. Of particular importance is the presentation of the graphical material: if it can be reproduced directly, the possibility of errors is reduced and your correction of the author proofs facilitated.

        Please send your revised manuscript from your manuscriptXpress homepage (http://www.manuscriptXpress.org). Please ignore the button "Manuscript Submission" (only for NEW MANUSCRIPTS) and enter directly your Login: ******* and password; then upload your archive file under "Manuscript(s) to be Revised" from your To Do list.

       Either in a separate e-mail, or if short in the "Notes for Production" please describe the alterations made. If you are of the opinion that your manuscript does not require alteration in all points raised by the referees, please give your reasons.

       We recommend you to collect your revision data in a single folder of your choice. It should contain:

1)The text including all pictures, tables, captions, Table of Contents and keywords collected in one word document (template).

2) In addition to this file, easy-to-handle formats for your artwork like ChemDraw, ChemWindows, Corel Draw and/or Windows metafiles, pict, Photoshop, high-resolution JPEG, TIF or EPS files are welcome if available. Please note that low-resolution JPEG and GIF files are not suitable for high-quality print purposes. Please save each formula, figure and scheme in a separate file.

3) Add any Supporting Information data if applicable as a single PDF file with the title of the paper and the authors names on top.

Combine ALL files in the above-mentioned folder into ONE single "archive" file (e.g. ZIP file, TAR file, SIT file). Upload the compressed data file (archive).

Alternatively you can send us hardcopies and electronic files (not archived) on a CD or (ZIP) disk by regular mail or courier.

We trust in your cooperation and look forward to receiving the final version of this fine paper soon.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Peter Gölitz

Editor

a)       原来拒稿的评审的意见，在此表示要拒稿。

Referee 1:

Importance: D) important but too specialized

Hypotheses Yes/No: Yes

Appropriate Length: Yes

Different Journal:

Recommend Acceptance: D) No

Referee Letter:

      The paper entitled “Highly Stereoselective One-pot Synthesis of Bicyclic Isoxazo-lidines with Five Chiral Centers via an Organocatalytic Tandem Process Involving a Diastereoselective Intramolecular Nitrone [3+2] Cycloaddition ” presented by ***** and coworkers has been slightly revised and submitted again for publication to Angew. Chem. together with a letter of rebuttal to the considerations previously made by this referee.

      I have again thoroughly revised this manuscript and I can only say that I reaffirm myself in my initial opinion against publication. I still consider that this reaction consist on a one-pot process involving a first well-known Michael reaction of an enolizable aldehyde with a nitroalkane (using a catalyst which has shown previously its outstanding performances exactly in the same reaction) followed by the addition of N-hydroxyaniline to the reaction medium, which involves the in situ generation of a nitrone which finally undergoes intramolecular [3+2] cycloaddition, the stereochemical outcome of the later being exclusively governed by the initial steterogenic centres generated previously at the Michael reaction step. This is therefore a case of a diastereoselective intramolecular nitrone cycloaddition (under substrate control) which, in my opinion, does not meet enough elements or novelty or interest to the wide readership of Angew. Chem. to justify publication. In this context, I think that this manuscript represents only a minor advance in a rather crowded field, rather than a significant contribution.

      Moreover, I also still find that the structure of the final compounds is very particular and that the immediate application to the asymmetric synthesis of a possible valuable compound such as a natural product or a bioactive compound is rather difficult or at least not trivial. In this context, I also think that the simple generation of a lot of stereogenic centres is not a merit by itself to justify publication in this journal. On the contrary, in my opinion, it is required that the employed methodology has to incorporate a true element of novelty to justify publication as a communication in this journal. I think that it is not the case with this report. On the other hand, the rebuttal letter calls on a similar paper reporting a one pot organocatalytic a-aminoxylation followed by 1,2-Grignard addition already reported by Hayashi in Angew. Chem. I do not see that the fact that another paper reporting one-pot or stepwise procedures involving organocatalysis has been published has to have any relevance in the suitability of other papers for publication.

       Finally, I would also like to point out that in the revised version, the interest of the methodology has also been presented relying on the fact that the intramolecular cycloaddition reaction proceeded with inverse electron demand. I strongly disagree with this statement because the reaction occurs with an electron-poor alkene (containing an electron-releasing substituent such as the ethoxycarbonyl group), as it is normally found in the wide majority of normal electron-demand [3+2] nitrone cycloadditions.

       For all these reasons I still consider that this manuscript is not suitable to be published in Angewandte Chemie

b) 新的评审的意见，并认为之前拒我稿子的审稿人过于苛刻了。

Referee 2:

Importance:

Hypotheses Yes/No:

Appropriate Length:

Different Journal:

Recommend Acceptance:

Referee Letter: After carefully reading through the referees' reports, the author's response, and corrected manuscript, I have come to the conclusion that referee 2 was too critical. The arguments of *** make sense, and the manuscript should be accepted after minor corrections:

1)      "chiral center" should be replaced by "stereocenter" or "stereogenic center" throughout the manuscript.

2)      Is Scheme 1 really necessary here? Is the mention in the text not enough?

3)      Stereochemistry" (page 3, lower left) should be replaced by "configuration".

4)      The English needed to be improved by the editors.

5)      A remark: I find that 0.2 mmol-scale reactions for new synthetic methods that have very specific yields given after flash chromatography on silica is somewhat of a problem. This also applies to giving a d.r. of 97:3 determined by crude 1H NMR.

c) 新找的第二个评审人意见，确认可以接收稿子，并提出一些小的疑问。

Referee 3:

Importance:

Hypotheses Yes/No:

Appropriate Length:

Different Journal:

Recommend Acceptance:

Referee Letter: Highly Stereoselective One-pot Synthesis of Bicyclic Isoxazolidines

The paper by Zhu, Lu, Dai and ***** presents a novel organocatalytic  one-pot reaction leading to highly functionalized products. We agree  with referee 1 that the paper deserves publication in ACIE given the

good results and the control of five stereogenic centers in the  products.

The issues raised by referee 2 are important but has been answered by  the authors, in as much, as they have included aliphatic substrates in  table 2. The issue about stereospecificity/diastereoselectivity in the

cyclization is secondary in our opinion as overall good d.r.?s are  presented.

The overall high quality of the work coupled with the nice  products/results and the serendipitously discovered  [3+2]-cycloaddition should warrant for publication in ACIE.