博文
恼火的审稿
|
前段时间为Experimental Mechanics（实验力学）审稿，认为作者的工作有一定的新意，于是就给出了大修后接受的评价。前天收到期刊编辑的请审修改稿的来信，由于初审了，所以也就很高兴的接受评审修改稿。当看了另外一个评审人的意见后，使得自己对自己很生气，也很恼火。
原来另外一个审稿人发现投稿人的另外一篇文章和此文章很相似，前两个图更是一模一样，自己没有发现此事。自己分析后发现，可能是前一个审稿人同样也是已接受文章的审稿人，该审稿人看到此情况后，直接给出拒稿的评审。看了看作者的回复才知道，评审此文时前一篇文章可能还没有Online first（肯定是已经接受了）。看来主编也是不太想毙掉此文，因为又进行了第二次评审。相信新审稿人都能非常清楚的看到下面的信息，并对此信息进行评估：
Editor's Note: Reviewer-1 raises serious concerns regarding the novelty of this submission relative to the one already published (期刊名，卷 (2013) 页码). Not only it is important to cite this article in the current submission but it is important to address how this submission is different from the one already published.
作者回复：We would like to kindly thank the Editor for his suggestion. The work reported in our contribution is in fact on the same type of material as in the work accepted in XXX. The tests reported in this manuscript are new, the analysis and results are not only completely novel but also towards a different direction. Our goal is to use the directly-measured XXX to validate, for the first time against experimental results, the widely accepted compliance theory and to examine the efficiency of the most popular XXX evaluation models.
It is with great pleasure that we have included reference to the previous manuscript that now appears as “In Press” in XXX; we have actually done so as soon as line 1 in the revised abstract. Let us please frankly convey that, at the time we submitted to your Journal, the previous work (which now appears as “In Press” at XXX) was still under correction and thus not available for citation as doi.
看到作者的辩解，特别是最后一段理由，有些生气，这不是不引用前文的好理由啊。
真是让自己为难！早知道如此，就不会接受再评审修改稿了。
投稿与审稿
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-38547-630725.html
上一篇：How to Teach Physics to Your Dog
下一篇：智慧城市研究基地
原来另外一个审稿人发现投稿人的另外一篇文章和此文章很相似，前两个图更是一模一样，自己没有发现此事。自己分析后发现，可能是前一个审稿人同样也是已接受文章的审稿人，该审稿人看到此情况后，直接给出拒稿的评审。看了看作者的回复才知道，评审此文时前一篇文章可能还没有Online first（肯定是已经接受了）。看来主编也是不太想毙掉此文，因为又进行了第二次评审。相信新审稿人都能非常清楚的看到下面的信息，并对此信息进行评估：
Editor's Note: Reviewer-1 raises serious concerns regarding the novelty of this submission relative to the one already published (期刊名，卷 (2013) 页码). Not only it is important to cite this article in the current submission but it is important to address how this submission is different from the one already published.
作者回复：We would like to kindly thank the Editor for his suggestion. The work reported in our contribution is in fact on the same type of material as in the work accepted in XXX. The tests reported in this manuscript are new, the analysis and results are not only completely novel but also towards a different direction. Our goal is to use the directly-measured XXX to validate, for the first time against experimental results, the widely accepted compliance theory and to examine the efficiency of the most popular XXX evaluation models.
It is with great pleasure that we have included reference to the previous manuscript that now appears as “In Press” in XXX; we have actually done so as soon as line 1 in the revised abstract. Let us please frankly convey that, at the time we submitted to your Journal, the previous work (which now appears as “In Press” at XXX) was still under correction and thus not available for citation as doi.
看到作者的辩解，特别是最后一段理由，有些生气，这不是不引用前文的好理由啊。
真是让自己为难！早知道如此，就不会接受再评审修改稿了。
投稿与审稿
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-38547-630725.html
上一篇：How to Teach Physics to Your Dog
下一篇：智慧城市研究基地
