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

编辑工作365(2)稿件初审后的修改

已有 3324 次阅读 2017-4-17 16:35 |个人分类:编辑工作365|系统分类:论文交流| 稿件修改, 稿件初审

各个期刊在稿件送审前均会有初审的流程。初审的目的是尽可能节省后期送审和编辑加工的工作量,对不符合刊稿范围,相关研究已有较多的报道,文章通过查重审查后发现存在抄袭问题的文章会直接退稿。对有一定新意,但是文字不通顺影响审稿人对科学内容的评判,稿件格式不符合期刊的基本要求,但有潜力修改好的文章会请作者修改后再送审。

在请作者修改时,有些作者可能想到反正都还没有送审,往往敷衍地进行修改,从而造成我们再次退给作者请他们进行二次修改或者直接退稿。

今天在处理一篇初审后作者修改了再投稿的稿件时, 发现作者完全不顾期刊的格式要求,根据自己的想像修改。由于我的疏忽,给作者发初审意见时只发了科学编辑的初审意见,没有要求他对质量很差的图进行修改。因此,今天再次请作者对稿件进行二次修改。

------------------------

科学编辑初审意见:

English is poor and needs revision. There are a lot of typos (many of your titles or subtitles have typos) and the text is not clear. At this stage this manuscript cannot be send for revision.
In general the structure of your work is poor and disorganized. There are no objectives, hypotheses, predictions or even questions explaining the order of your thoughts in your work. Adding this will help the reader to follow your work and to be more clear. Abstract is too long. Introduction is short and poorly written. Taxonomy should not be a part of the introduction, it can be placed in the methods. Discussion is also poorly written. The text is not fluent and it is very hard to read.
I have to be honest, I was expecting a manuscript with few and bad results. But, I am gratefully surprise that you did a lot with your data and results seem interesting (although I did not do a thorough revision). I think it is necessary to write a better introduction and a more clear discussion in order to have a very good manuscript. It is a pity that your results are lost in a messy manuscript. I truly encourage the authors to make changes in your manuscript to have a more appeal work:
•Revise English with a native speaker
•Abstract must be more concise and appealing
•Introduction and discussion must be rewritten and have to be linked each other
•You must add objectives, research question, hypotheses or predictions (not all of them, just one or two of these things) to make your work easier to understand.

----------------------------------------

修改后返回时我再次请作者修改的意见:

1. The Scientific Editor's comments to your first round of submission that ask you to add objectives, research question, hypotheses or predictions do not mean that you list all of them as a separate sections. Please refer to the sample paper of JMS "Article template for JMS" at http://jms.imde.ac.cn/downloads for manuscript preparation.
2. This paper contains  too many figures and most figures are in poor quality. Please only keep the important figures in the main body and delete the less important figures or just use them as supplementary materials. Figures must be reprepared to meet the requirements.



投稿与审稿
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-314423-1049460.html

上一篇:编辑工作365(1)
下一篇:展示一篇对"利用气温计算山区裸地地表温度的新方法"的审稿意见

3 樊采薇 沈志强 蒋新正

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...
扫一扫,分享此博文

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

GMT+8, 2020-11-25 18:15

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部