书接前文“论文中的台湾与国界线——与审稿人的两次争辩”，故事有新篇，经历又丰富。这次是遇到了期刊编辑（这个编辑还是这个期刊的主编之一）要求我们把文章中研究区位示意图上的十段线删去。

这次的文章我并非第一作者或通讯作者，只是合作者。文章是方法研究，用的是国内一个小研究区，研究区地图左侧为了体现研究区的大致位置而给出了中国地图（按中国地图规范要求给出了十段线）标上研究区位置点。

文章去年夏天投稿，每一轮都好慢，主要慢在编辑手里的阶段。第一轮3位审稿人1个大修2个小修，编辑给出大修决定；第二轮审稿人只建议了很小的语言确认方面的小修；第三轮没有再送外审，整一个月后，编辑返回两条意见，一条是英语：“There still need to be some grammatical corrections. ...The manuscript needs to be carefully edited to improve it's English.“另一条就不对味了：”In addition, the ten dashes round the South China Sea in Figure [X] should be removed, as they are not necessary for the map and are not consistent with the 2016 tribunal decision constituted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).”

第一作者（还急着等文章毕业）和通讯作者找我商量如何处理，我给他们回的邮件大致意思如下：“没想到是这么个意见，看来这个编辑处理这么慢是有原因的，地图九段线问题这次被用这种方式提出来，尤其是“not consistent with the 2016 tribunal decision constituted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)”——是指2016海牙国际仲裁法院临时法庭对菲律宾提出的南海仲裁决定，这个国际仲裁法院和联合国没关系，中国也从来不认可这个决定，......现在赶上这个事，虽然是示意图上、目前处于这个编辑内部处理阶段，至少也是个人原则问题，怎么处理还是先以你们二人的意见为主。......”

感谢他们对我个人想法的认同，还是决定顶回去。于是我们一方面还是花钱送了这个期刊推荐的润色公司作了英文润色，另一方面他们二位结合我之前的经验去撰写不同意移除十段线的意见回复，我同时自己写了一个版本发给他们参考整合。我的回复版本如下：

“...We hope to draw your particular attention on the other comment from the editor, that is, “In  addition, the ten dashes round the South China Sea in Figure [X] should be removed, as they are not  necessary for the map and are not consistent with the 2016 tribunal decision constituted under the  United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).” Although we appreciated the work  and other comments from the editor, we cannot agree with the editor on this point. It is  regrettable that this comment is political and beyond the science of this study. All authors of this  submission are Chinese. We made maps for figures in this paper following academic standard as  well as Chinese laws. We noted that in some recent publications in 【这个期刊名】(e.g., doi:…, Figure X;  doi:…, Figure X; even some with the same editor, e.g., doi…【注：前面的省略号是原本就写的省略号，我留批注请第一作者和通讯作者去寻找可能支持这样表述的证据，后来告诉我是有的，但我不知道是否是这个编辑负责的文章，可能期刊里没有这个信息】) the dashes showing the boundary of  China were same as ours in this paper. Sorry, we cannot follow the editor’s instruction to remove  the dashes in Figure [X], which shows the boundary of China. Acceptance of this comment (and  corresponding revision) will lead us (as Chinese) to break the Regulation on Map Management of  China (see http://www.lawinfochina.com/display.aspx?id=21392&lib=law) as well as our personal  principle.

To the best of our knowledge, the Arbitral Tribunal of the South China Sea arbitration unilaterally  initiated by the Philippine in 2016 has no jurisdiction on this issue, and the arbitration and its  international legal effect have never been participated or accepted by China government. However  we believe the submission-reviewing system of 【这个期刊名】is not an appropriate place for discussing  personal political opinions or individual national/international law issue. Please, let’s focus on  science here.

So we have to reject this comment. Hope it’s fine for the editor. We hope that our rejection on this  comment will not become the reason of potential rejection decision on our revised manuscript  possibly made by the journal.

Thanks again for your efforts on kindly processing our submission. Looking forward to receiving  your response.”

第一作者和通讯作者最后整合提交的cover letter和意见回复我就不放了，我这版回复的基本信息大致都包括了。

这一轮在编辑手中又是20天，返回的编辑回复是：“Thank you for the revisions to the text, which is now acceptable. Regarding the modification to the map, I have checked with the editorial office at [XXX] and they confirm that my advice is in line with [XXX] policy regarding maps of China, though they admit that some previous papers have not fully complied with this policy. My advice would be to remove the national map inset in Figure [X], as it is not necessary for the paper. I should emphasise that my advice is in no way "political"; I'm simply doing my best to implement the editorial policy of the journal. Apart from the map, as I'm concerned the manuscript is now ready for publication, for which I congratulate you. Any further correspondence should be directed to the editorial office.”

这次编辑也算是退让，以这个inset map本身也并不必须保留为理由（的确也是如此），考虑到第一作者临毕业时间压力已然过大，我们就也做让步，删去了这个位置示意图。我写了一段意见回复交给第一作者：“We understand the editor’s comment that the inset map for indicating the study area location is not necessary for the paper. Current Figure [X] has removed the inset map and labeled the longitudes and latitudes of the study area. And if possible, it would be appreciated to let us know the codes of [XXX]’s publishing policy regarding maps, so that we could better prepare our manuscripts in the future.”

这一轮又过了几天，文章接收了。

这次赶上了期刊编辑（还是这个期刊的主编之一）提出这种要求，比审稿人的地位更为强势，我们争取之下，不算成功，但应该也不算太失败，至少顶一顶、让编辑收回去最初的说法，这个编辑后面再对中国作者投的文章想提类似的要求的时候应该会先想一下这次的经历吧。

以上，供同仁参考，并祝同仁们遇不上这种事。

不知我是否经历比较特别，这几年投的三篇文章遇到了两个审稿人、一个编辑找这方面的麻烦。如果有其他中国作者也有类似的频率的话，只能说那些同仁们没有透露出来、我也没能百度出来，真要这样，我对同仁们乃至国内学会团队还是有些想说的话的，这里不表。

最后：免责声明和转载事项同之前博文“论文中的台湾与国界线——与审稿人的两次争辩”里写的。

是为记。