博文
JMS-Manuscript initial review by Scientific Editors
|||
All manuscripts submitted to JMS will first be subjected to plagiarism checking, then sent to Scientific Editors (SE) for initial review. The purpose of this procedure is to primarily select better manuscripts, shorten manuscript processing time and reduce the later manuscript handling amount.
SEs will spend relatively much less time than reviewers in eliminating poor quality manuscripts. SE will make comments based on the plagiarism checking result and their professional judgements to decide whether a manuscript is Rejected, or needs Revision (only major revision), or to send for peer-review.
SE will click the listed reasons or to write out clearly other reasons when they make comments.
Reject
□ 1. Previously published
□ 2. Total similarity index above 50% by plagiarism checker
□ 3. Similarity index with one single literature being above 20% by plagiarism checker
□ 4. Well written but better suited for another journal
□ 5. Major language problems: readers can’t understand what the authors want to express
□ 6. Too poorly written, phrased, or presented
□ 7. Important tables, figures (pictures) and data are copied from other literature or the authors’ own published papers
□ 8. Old knowledge with no new or useful material
□ 9. Fundamentally weak hypothesis
□ 10． Reasonable text, but images are of very poor quality, are inappropriate, or are incorrectly interpreted
□ 11. Too many methodological errors
□ 12. Hypothesis adequate, but poor study design, methodology, or statistics
□ 13. Lacking in logic, initial premise not logically supported by methods and results
□ 14. Sample population too small or biased to justify results and conclusion
□ 15. Lack of important results to evaluate its contribution.
□ 16 Lack of correlation between purpose and results
□ 17．Other reasons (please clearly write out)
Revision
□ 1. Failure to follow JMS author guidelines
□ 2. The ideas are good, the results are enough,but poor image and/or table quality;
□ 3. Novel ideas, high quality images, clear tables, but language expression needs to be greatly improved;
□ 4. Novel ideas, high quality images, clear tables, but the whole text is poorly organized
□ 5. Novel idea and /or significant contribution, but technical quality (a few experiments may be needed) and/or presentation needs major revision;
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-314423-488219.html
上一篇：That Ginko Tree on the Roadside
下一篇：JMS-Guide to Scientific Editor in ScholarOne Manuscript
