从2012年12月14号初稿草成到2013年01月19号首次投稿，历时近一个月，感觉越来越快了！

     NO.1由于当时想3年毕业，所以选了个新刊(一般来说审稿周期比较短)，感觉这篇paper质量投《ACS Catalysis》有点悬，所以选了RSC的新刊《Catalysis Science & Technology》，感觉应该差不多！投稿后11天拿到审稿意见，快倒是挺快的，结果不是好结果。两个审稿人的意见都比较负面，Reviewer 1认为我们的合成Bi/BiOI的方法和用其来降解降解双酚A已经有报道，但我们没有恰当的引用，并给出了两篇相关文献；对于合成方法一般都是水热和溶剂热，我们用的溶剂热方法与reviewer给出的NO1参考文献一致，但是反应条件却不相同得到的催化剂也不一样，我们在实验中考察时间和温度对于合成样品组成和形貌的影响，在实验中意外发现金属铋和BiOI的共存，至于审稿人提到的第二篇文献是用(3D) BiOI/BiOCl composites降解双酚A的文章，其合成方法中的Bi源和I源和我们的都不一样，合成出来催化剂也和我们的不一样，相同的只是模式污染物而已；Reviewer 2的审稿意见很精练，只有3条3句话3行，主要就是说BiOI已经有很多文献报道，怀疑文章的创新性，但是Bi/BiOI composites在我们发表之前据我所知还没有文献报道过，根据reviewer的思路TiO2早就不用再做了，但是现在依然有高水平的paper出来不是！但是部分审稿意见还是合理的，我们根据其做了相应的修改，准备改投他刊。

     NO.2没用几天的修改，于2013年02月03日改投到现在的期刊《Chemical Engineering Journal》(因为从小木虫得知这个期刊负责光催化这块的编辑Dionysios Dionysiou很nice！(还是想着快点出好毕业，自我感觉这篇paper投到这里应该可以了）历经：

Feb 03 submit in journal

Feb 09 send back to author

Feb 19 technical check in progress

Feb 22 with editor

Feb 28 under review

Apr 06 under review

Apr 13 reject

四个Reviewers，回来三个审稿意见，Reviewer1没有返回意见；Reviewer2(7条意见)和3(5条意见)的审稿意见灰常的好，都是这样的描述：“Manuscript is well written. The work and resultsdiscussed here are of the high quality and the work is publishable in Chemicalengineering journal.”、“The paper describes the synthesis of a newcomposite prepared by a simple solvothermal method. The samples were wellcharacterized and addionally these materials exhibited good performance asphotocatalysts for BPA degradation. The paper is well written and theexperimental techniques used are appropriate.”同时，都同意“minor corrections”后接收；但是Reviewer4的审稿意见只有59个字外加一篇文献，认为我的的工作和他给出的文献没有什么新的地方，我查了那篇文献，以下是我们作出的回复：

       It is true that many BiO-halogen-related studies have been reported recently, including various BiOI [1-13] and its composites such as BiOI/graphene [10], BiOI-MWCNT [14], Ag/BiOI [15, 16], AgI/BiOI [17], BiOCl/BiOI [18-20], BiOBr/BiOI [21-23], BiOI/Bi₂O₃[24, 25], Bi₂S₃/BiOI [26], BiOI/(BiO)₍₂₎CO₃[27, 28], BiOI/Bi₂WO₆[29], ZnWO₄/BiOI [30], BiOI/TiO₂[31], ZnO/BiOI [32] and so on, have been reported because of their excellent photocatalytic performance. This suggests that BiO-halogen is attracting the interest of many researchers, but does not mean that new related work should not be published. TiO₂ is a typical semiconductor, which has been studied for decades, and there are huge reports about TiO₂ photocatalysis. However, there are still many good papers being published. Science and technology are progressing on the basis of previous studies.

      Even though, this manuscript is also BiO-halogen-related, we reported the one-step synthesis of Bi/BiOI composites and their photocatalytic activities under solar light irradiation for the first time. We read the reference recommended (Journal of Hazardous Materials, Volumes 233-234, 30 September 2012, Pages 122-130) by the reviewer, and compared the contents of the two papers. We found they are significantly different no matter in title or in the contents.

①The title of the reference is "One-pot solvothermalsynthesis of three-dimensional (3D) BiOI/BiOClcomposites with enhanced visible-light photocatalytic activities for thedegradation of bisphenol-A", while the title of our manuscript is " Highly active Bi/BiOI composite synthesized byone-step reaction and its capacity to degrade bisphenol A under simulated solarlight irradiation". The titles look similar, but in fact, they are significantly different. The reference was about BiOI/BiOCl, which has been reported also in other references, but our study was about Bi/BiOI, which has NOT been reported before.

② The contents of the two manuscript aresignificantly different. In the reference, the study mainly focused on thesynthesis of BiOI/BiOCl composites with different ratio of BiOI/BiOCl and optimized the reaction conditions, such as BPA concentration, dosage of thecomposites, solution pH. In our manuscript, we extensively investigated thereaction mechanisms of as prepared Bi/BiOI composites by adding different scavengers of reactive species in the photocatalytic system.

最后，编辑给了reject！总结关于网评这么nice的Dionysios Dionysiou拒我们稿件的原因(纯属个人臆断)：1.有的审稿人审稿时间过短(我是根据under review时间变化来判断的），貌似没有经过审稿人仔细的推敲；2.有时候审稿人的审稿意见太好可能也会对编辑的决定产生负面影响(虽然很喜欢好的意见）；3.编辑估计也没时间给核对你的paper和别人的是否相似吧；4.有审稿意见没返回也可能是原因之一吧！于是，和老板商量一下决定申诉！

     NO3重投《Chemical Engineering Journal》，经过简单的修改后申诉之，编辑的确很nice，很快有了回复，让重投，于是4月27日重新投稿，我勒个去的，竟然技术审查没通过(大哥上次都过了的啊！无语中……），弄了弄重新返回去，历程如下：

Apr 27 submit in journal

Apr 30 Editor invited

May 03 Technical Check in Progress

May 08 Submissions Sent Back to Author

May 10 Technical Check in Progress

May 11 with editor

May 16 under review

May 17 under review

May 28 under review

Jun 09 under review

Jun 19 major revised

Jul 18 Revision Submitted to Journal

Jul 20 under review

Aug 13 Required Reviews Completed

Aug 14 Accept

Aug 14 Invited to prepare cover figure (within 10 days)

Aug 21 Cover figure submitted

Aug 22 available online

一路走一路说，经历了重投-大修-再审-封面-没了的大起大落。两个Reviewers给的审稿意见都比较多，而且都涉及到补做实验，还不止一项(这不禁让我想起了孙学军老师的那篇博客《怎样看审稿人要求补实验》 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-41174-706652.html），不过总算都是major，最后编辑让major后再review，如果有一个审稿人再让修就会杯具掉。Review1审稿意见8大+4小，让表征XPS验证实验结论，补做循环实验和加测COD表征矿化度，我猜是印度的一个女的副教授，呵呵，（因为让我introduction中引用了同一个人的三篇文章做参考文献，但是这三篇文献既与Bi没关系，也和BiOI没关系，里面倒是都做了COD测试，于是将其强引到矿化度说明矿化度表征降解的重要性，之所以说“强引”是因为最后我们呈现用来表征矿化度的是TOC(这是Reviewer2让表征的）。Reviewer2审稿意见4条，让补测TOC，测降解产物推导反应历程，其实，大哥这些都做了的话，可以投个更好一点的Journal么，这不赶着毕业么！么有办法，按照两个审稿人的意见逐一补做了相关实验，进行了大量的修改，不过倒是提升了paper的质量。历时一个月左右的修改，返回修改稿，以为不会再review会直接接收呢(以前实验室有过挺多先例，说major后再审，结果没再审就接收了），结果我的还是review again了。那时候，那个夏天毕业已经离我远去，只能期待年底了(我博硕同导师，但是3+3博硕做的东西不一样，博士毕业硕士成果老板不给算)。苦命的等待是一种煎熬，历时3周回来意见，两个审稿人都对revised表示满意建议accept。于是尘埃落定，还没完，nice的Dionysios Dionysiou编辑邀我们Journal Cover，好事啊，心情很激动也算对我补做那么多实验的补偿吧！结果按照要求投给指定的编辑后就石沉大海了，一直到online，又到出页码了，我知道没被选中（原来这个邀请也未必上( ⊙ o ⊙ )啊！又学习了！未免有一些失落！不管怎么地，感谢编辑Dionysios Dionysiou，感谢各位Reviewers，paper是published，可以年底毕业了（早半年晚半年我倒是无所谓，GF催的紧哦！)最近一直在忙着写毕业论文和下一篇小paper的修改，打算试试《ACS Catalysis》。今天终于有点空写出来分享一下感受！该吃饭了，完了回本部！

    Bless you！Bless me！Bless everyone！

                                                                                 ——二零一三年于南开大学泰达学院五号楼

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1385894713010930

Highly active BiBiOI composite synthesized by one step reaction and its capacity.pdf