最近笔者利用自己所发展的BCS量子临界理论计算了2个抛物标度的实验值，理论与实验结果高精度吻合。写成论文后投稿到超导领域最顶级的专业期刊Superconductor Science and Technology（SUST）。但却在审稿人高度推荐的情况下被拒稿，具体可见：特殊的圣诞节“礼物”：超导顶刊的拒稿。

    由于是圣诞节前夕拒稿，再次投稿需要等到2019年1月份，因此笔者给SUST编辑部写了一封申诉信，大意是：在编辑1已经肯定了论文在杂志范围内，并且审稿人2（只有一位审稿人）高度推荐的情况下，被Board member以理论没有被公认为理由拒稿，感觉理由并不正当。

编辑部在收到笔者的申诉信2周之后作了回复，从而让笔者了解到编辑部拒稿的真正原因。这次编辑部回复的内容很长，他们请了一位编辑3作了很深入的调查，就笔者所有的申诉理由（一共四点）进行回复。

这里笔者略去编辑3所报告的历史细节，其中他们特别强调了一点：笔者的原创性理论发表于EPL而不是SUST，因此这次投稿到SUST的论文原创性不足。

下面是编辑3报告的最终结论（类似于正方与反方的公诉）

In response to the appeal points of the author [my comments in italics]:

1. Board member recommendation was not based on a science reason. The role of the board member is to check process and add to assist the editor in the decision making. The board member’s comments are exactly correct saying that the paper is out of scope as it does not provide original research. The appeal point is not upheld. （大意是：Board member的角色是协助编辑检查审稿过程及辅助编辑做决定，而不是做学术成果科学内容的评价，Board member认为稿件没有提供原创性工作的理由是成立的）

2. Cover letter explained that this is bringing two pieces of work together to show accuracy of the work in his reference [11] and [12]. I appreciate what the author has tried to show that his theory has been proven correct. Unfortunately the author would need to add in more than just bring the work together to have enough substantial new work to make this original enough. This appeal point is not upheld.（大意是：我appreciate作者已经显示他发表在EPL的理论被证明是正确的，但是作者应该在此基础上发展新的原创性结果才足以在SUST发表）

3. Referee 1 was positive. It is not uncommon for referees to have positive comments especially if they have just read the paper at face value. At SUST we take a range of views before making a decision. It is not just one referee but a number that are taken into account. There are three plus now me. This appeal point is not upheld. （大意是：审稿人给出正面意见的情形并不少见，但是审稿人的评价往往只看到论文的表面价值，这与我们作为杂志编辑的视角不同。）

注：编辑3在信的前面给出了另外一个Board member的意见——“论文没有提供试验结果，不在杂志收稿范围内”。因此2位Board member和1位同行专家应该算作3个意见。（笔者显然不知道编辑部内部其实还有更多笔者所不知道的评价意见）

4. The author says their paper gives the exact formula in accordance with experimental measures, and the formula can be further tested by using other BCS-like materials. They believe such an accurate result is of broad interest to scientific community in the field. The author would like to add the figure about theoretical calculations against the experimental data as the referee 1 has proposed. I can see what you are trying to do. However to be publishable, it is necessary to build on this and extend it more broadly. This appeal point is not upheld. （大意是：作者的论文要想发表必须在现在论文的基础上做出进一步的原创性结果）

从以上的程序来看，SUST编辑部的审查程序是公正的，笔者似乎也被说服了。根据编辑3长篇报告的前半部分，编辑部拒稿的理由在2个方面。1. 笔者的原创性理论发表在EPL而不是SUST，因此后者没有义务做嫁衣。2. 尽管笔者给出高精度的实验理论值，但是不能弥补原创性的缺失。杂志既要求理论与实验精确比较，也要求原创性。

最后编辑3也告知笔者如果要想把该论文发表在SUST只有2个办法：

The paper remains rejected. To be publishable in SUST, it would need to be (1) a full topical review of the parabolic scaling topic of all people working in the field and showing the link or (2) to add in new work extending the original work and using the experimental confirmation as a basis for extending the work further.

（大意是：

1. 将对抛物标度的文献综述做到方方面面，以弥补原创性的不足。

或者

2. 在论文中加入新的原创性结果，并且新的结果要有实验证据。）

总的来说，笔者还是被编辑的回复说服了。尽管理论与实验结果高精度吻合，但那也只是EPL理论的应用，不具有原创性。当然如果BCS量子临界理论预先要是发表在SUST，情况会完全不同，杂志的报道总是倾向于连续性。在此笔者也终于知道论文的真正去处。

不管SUST编辑部这次决策的结果如何，但是他们的程序始终是公正的，并使得笔者能够从他们的角度去看问题，进而认同他们的观点。笔者在想，这也许值得国内学术期刊编辑部进行学习与借鉴。