秦承志的科学网博客分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/qincz

博文

论文中的台湾与国界线——与审稿人的两次争辩

已有 599 次阅读 2021-3-24 20:59 |个人分类:其他信息|系统分类:科研笔记

我博士以来的研究工作一直关注于地理信息科学中地理建模分析的方法研究,只是最近四年里因为参与了一项中国红树林遥感分类制图的科技部项目,才先后带了一个博士后和一个博士生做到了遥感。

这个中国红树林遥感分类的研究工作不可避免在写文章中要涉及分类结果图上9段线的显示和分省统计中列出台湾省的红树林遥感分类面积统计结果(后者,虽然限于还不便实际野外验证,项目本身只要求大陆地区、并没有要求这部分结果,但一开始我就确定是要一起做遥感分类的,这样才算完整分类结果)。近年曾听说过一些国际学术期刊中对于一些不同地方作者之间对于国界和主权归属问题方面起争议的事情,也大致知道国际学术期刊的编辑通常将此作为政治性而非学术问题、倾向于持中立立场的事情。没想到最近不到一年时间里,学生连续两篇文章向国外期刊的投稿过程中都遇到了审稿人在这方面找茬,我和学生通过意见回复怼了回去(相应的回复方式和措辞我还是经过反复考虑修改的,其他的科学部分的意见回复都好处理,第一次回复的时候还是做好了万一被拒的准备——大不了不在这个期刊发了,单独向编辑部argue一下、另投),未做修改,明显第一篇的那个审稿人很不爽,继续找茬,好在最后两篇文章对这方面都未做变动,成功接收发出来了。

这里记录一下这个问题上和审稿人争辩的过程(包括相应对期刊编辑的说明),供遇到类似问题的同行们参考。

 

特别声明:

1)以下介绍中引用了必要的仅限于这个争议点(不属于科学部分)的审稿人意见和我们回复的原文,应该不违反期刊对审稿意见公开程度的政策。如有违反,立删。

2)我们的回复争辩成功了,但并不代表就是标准答案,仅供参考,一方面,建议遇到类似问题的投稿人要据理力争,但不要一字不动的照抄我们的回复;另一方面,欢迎有经验者提供更正式、有理有利有节的回复方案,帮助我们更好地应对未来可能遇到的类似情况。

 

1、遇到这个问题的第一篇文章

第一轮审稿,一个审稿人的一条意见是:“In Table 4, line …, Taiwan is included as one of the provinces of China. I don't think the Taiwanese will agree to that. Please delete it.”这个审稿人可能来自台湾。

我们的回复:“Although we appreciated other comments from the reviewer, we cannot agree with the reviewer on this point. Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. This is a common sense (also known as ‘One China principle’), according to the statements from not only the China government, but also the United Nations, and the most of countries in the world (which have established formal diplomatic relations with China), including the “1992 Consensus” agreed by both official sides of the Taiwan Strait. Therefore, we cannot change it on this point.”

同时,给编辑看的Cover letter特别提到这一点:“One point that we particularly want to make you notice is about the … comment from Reviewer … (i.e., “…”). Although we appreciated other comments from the reviewer, we cannot agree with the reviewer on this point. We rejected this comment, due to the common sense that “Taiwan is an inalienable part of China”. Frankly, we, as Chinese researchers, felt offended very much. We hope that our rejection on this comment will not become the (part of) reason of potential rejection decision on our revised manuscript possibly made by the journal.”

 

第二轮审稿,同一个审稿人,给出了一条意见:“Table 4 title. Change the word "provinces" to "study site" to make it consistent with the maps presented. Also, there is no column name for column 1. Please name it as "Study Site" also for consistency.”

那表中有一行是台湾省的统计结果,这条意见是不让把这一列作为省,而是只作为Study Site。由于有第一轮的争辩,这里也就没打算让步。

我们的回复:“In this study, we consistently used “site” to present those very local places (such as the sampling sites; we did not use the term “study site” in this manuscript of large-area mangrove mapping) and used the administrative unit of “province” for statistics on mangrove area. To avoid possible confusion from readers and match the content of this table, we did not change the word “provinces” to be “study site” as this comment suggested. Hope this is fine for the reviewer. About the column name of the first column, because there are also “Total (ha)” in the last row besides those province-level administrative units, we believe that it is unnecessary to add “Province” as the column name. We suppose that the reviewer would agree on this point.(最后这两句回复我是有些想故意讽刺一下审稿人)”

同时,给编辑看的Cover letter还是特别提到这一点:“We hope to draw your particular attention on the … comment (“…”) from Reviewer …. We think this comment actually is the subsequent of Reviewer’s … comment on our former manuscript (i.e., “…”), which have been rejected by us in the former manuscript. In this round of revision,…”

 

这位审稿人对我们每一轮的回复应该很不爽,每一轮审稿都应该是拖到了期刊审稿的截止期才提交(没有继续拖延,我觉得这位还是有职业道德的),每一轮都要求我们大修,包括第三轮,其他审稿人已经没有意见了,这个审稿人给出的唯一意见是文章的英语表达不规范,要求找英文编辑润色,给了一个Major Revision。这个润色费我们花了(按科技部现行的项目管理要求,这种润色费不能报销),然后投上去后编辑直接接收。

 

除了要和审稿人据理力争,还应该同时争取编辑的注意和理解(我们这两篇投稿的编辑正好都是华裔,所以投出修改和意见回复时,我还是非常有信心的)。

 

2、遇到这个问题的第二篇文章

第一轮审稿,一个审稿人的一条意见是:“Figure 1: Please remove the dashes between China and the Philippines.”这是要让我们删去图上九段线,我猜测这个审稿人有可能来自菲律宾。

我们的回复:“It is regrettable that this comment is political and beyond the science of this study. Sorry, we cannot remove the dashes between China and Philippines, because acceptance of this comments (and corresponding revisions) will lead us (as Chinese) to break the Regulation on Map Management of China (see http://www.lawinfochina.com/display.aspx?id=21392&lib=law). We have to reject this comment. Hope this is fine for the reviewer.”

 

这个审稿人的另一条意见是:“Table 4: Please indicate that Taiwan is governed by the Republic of China”

我们的回复:“Although we appreciated other comments from the reviewer, it is regrettable that this comment is political and beyond the science of this study. According to the “1992 Consensus” agreed by both official sides of the Taiwan Strait, the ‘One China principle’ is adhered by both sides when for each side the expression could be different. We, as authors from the mainland China, hope to follow this principle and keep this table unchanged. Hope this is fine for the reviewer.”考虑到这个审稿人可能不是来自台湾,对这个问题的表述和第一篇文章中类似问题的表述还是有明显差异的,所以我写的回复也采用了不同的措辞。

 

同时,给编辑看的Cover letter特别提到这一点:“We hope to draw your particular attention on the … comment (“…”) and the … comment (“…”) from Reviewer …. It is regrettable that these two comments are political and beyond the science of this study. Acceptance of the two comments (and corresponding revisions) will lead us (as Chinese) to break not only our common sense but also the Regulation on Map Management of China (see http://www.lawinfochina.com/display.aspx?id=21392&lib=law). We hope that our rejection on the two comments will not become the (part of) reason of potential rejection decision on our revised manuscript possibly made by the journal.”

 

这位审稿人第二轮没有再纠缠这个问题。

 

以上两个亲身案例,记录一下,供参考。

 

(未经许可,不可转载。转发本文链接没有问题)

 




http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-65307-1278412.html

上一篇:[转载]应陈磊老师公众号约稿写的一篇《失败集》

1 檀成龙

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (0 个评论)

数据加载中...

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )

GMT+8, 2021-4-11 18:03

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部