博文
读稿和审稿的方法学
精选
||
我第一次成为国际刊物独立审稿人是在2003年。五年多来为二十多个杂志审了近百篇文章。刚开始当审稿人的时候，学习了The ACS Style Guide第二版，里面有大量著名化学专家关于如何审稿的介绍性文章（The ACS Style Guide第二版已经把这些内容去掉了）。审稿的好处在于锻炼自己critical thinking的能力。有了这种能力，自己就能用这种critical的眼光审视自己的稿件，这样自己投文章就更有把握。同时，稿子审得越多，编辑找自己越勤快，这说明自己的劳动和学术判断被承认，这样自己以后投稿就更加有credit了。
Making the Right Moves: A Practical Guide to Scientific Management, p. 182.
As your relationships with journal editors develop, you may be asked to review manuscripts submitted by other scientists. Take the task seriously. Do the reviews throughly and promptly. If you don't have time or don't think you have the right expertise, let the editors know right away. They will not hold this against you. A late or weak review, however, could hurt your reputation with the editors. The benefits of serving as a reviewer are potentially great. Not only will you learn about others' research, you will improve your own critical skills and confirm your standing as a knowledgeable scientist in the eyes of the editors. You own future papers will be taken more seriously if you do good reviews.
给中国杂志投稿和给外国杂志投稿不大一样。有的催化文章投中国化学不中，投Journal of Molecular Catalysis A却能中。而有的美国化学会志两页快报投中国化学倒未必会中，因为审稿人看不懂。外国的催化杂志审稿偏重于总体印象，有时候审稿人对实验提不出意见，就说这篇文章没有趣、没有用，还没有达到该杂志的水平，建议投其它差的杂志。越是出名的审稿人，审起稿子越是高屋建瓴，评价该文章在该课题中的地位和意义，而很少死扣字句的错误。
下面我从一些摘录一下审稿人看什么。了解这些，即可以帮助自己成为合格的审稿人，又能促使写作者从审稿人角度挑剔的审视自己的文章，进行修改。
Communicating Science: A Practical Guide, Springer, p. 102.
Before starting on your task, jot down your answers to a list of questions such as:
1) Is this the appropriate journal for publication? If not, can I suggest a better medium?
2) Is this paper significant/important? Why? Why not?
3) Is it comprehensive with respect to its subject matter?
4) Are there omissions?
5) Are there mistakes? Inaccuracies?
6) Is the work reproducible from the evidence provided?
7) Do some of the authors' assertations need to be qualified?
8) Does the paper conform to the high standards as previous contributions from the same group?
9) Is the writing clear and fluid? Can it be improved? How?
10) Are there mispellings? Typos?
11) Is the bibliography (reference) adequant?
12) Is the artwork necessary and complelling?
13) Is the title adequate?
14) Should the abstract be rewritten?
15) Can I suggest cuts in the manuscript?
16) How can I sum up in a sentence or two my overall assessment?
The ACS Style Guide (Third Edition), p. 74.
The entire manuscript should be read carefully and critically. Most reviewers read a manuscript more than once. Manuscripts should be rated on technical quality, significance of the work, importance to the research field, and adequacy of expression. Many reviewers divide their reviews into general comments and specific, detailed comments. In the general section, reviewers draw attention to both the strong and weak points of the manuscript, the concepts, the objectives, and the methods. Like an author writing a manuscript, reviewers should write reviews in a comprehensive but concise manner, addressing the questions presented below:
Suggested Topics for A Peer Review
1) Are the methods (experimental section) adequately described and referenced?
2) Are there any unsupported conclusions?
3) Is there anything that is confusing or ambiguous?
4) Do figures and tables appropriately illustrate the data?
5) Is the introduction clear and informative?
6) Is either the introduction or discussion longer than necessary, and do they make sense in relation to the subject and the data?
7) Although the discussion is the appropriate place for speculation, is it excessive?
8) Are the appropriate references cited? Are the references accurate?
9) Is English usage and grammar adequate?
10) Is the length of the manuscript unwarranted? Suggestions on how a manuscript can be shortened are appreciated by editors.
11) Is the use of color warrented? Printing color is a significant expense for the publisher.
Essential Skills for Science and Technology, Oxford University Press, p. 161.
Critical analysis
1) Is the article appropriate for its target audience?
2) Does the article build on prior research?
3) Does the article reflect a good knowledge or previous literature in the field?
4) Does the authors identify the problem or issue clearly and explain its relevance?
5) Did the authors choose the best research method and approach? Was it executed properly?
6) Were the methodology, findings, and reasons for their conclusions logically and clearly explained?
7) Do the authors make appropriate comparisons to similar events, cases, or occurances?
8) Are the ideas really new or do the authors merely repackage old ideas with new names?
9) Were there adequate and appropriate examples and illustrations?
10) Do the authors discuss everything they promise in the abstract, introduction, and outline?
11) Does the article make a contribution to its field? If not, in what way should it have made a contribution and why didn't it?
12) What are the article's strengths and weaknesses?
13) What are its limitations and boundaries?
14) Did it discuss all the important aspects in its domain thoroughly?
15) Overall, how complete and thorough a job did the authors do? Did they justify their conclusions adequately? Did they provide enough background information to make their work comprehensible?
16) How confident are you in the article's results? Is it convincing?
以上我摘录了审稿人的思考问题。应该说上述问题比较“文”，比如文章的布局和思路等。审稿人更多问“理”的问题，如具体实验细节不清楚等。写审稿意见首先要写本文用什么方法研究了什么？新颖性和重要性如何？强项和弱项是什么？最大的问题是什么？推荐不推荐发表？在论述主要问题、主要矛盾以后，给出其它一条一条的小的修改意见。如果审稿人的审稿意见只有一句“很好，值得发表”，或者“不好，应该退稿”，而不讲出具体理由，那么这样的审稿意见可信性就降低了，给编辑的印象也不好，说明审稿人没有仔细看。好的审稿意见不但给出总体评价，而且给出具体修改意见，指出第几页第几行。这说明审稿人仔细地看了文章。
Making the Right Moves: A Practical Guide to Scientific Management, p. 182.
As your relationships with journal editors develop, you may be asked to review manuscripts submitted by other scientists. Take the task seriously. Do the reviews throughly and promptly. If you don't have time or don't think you have the right expertise, let the editors know right away. They will not hold this against you. A late or weak review, however, could hurt your reputation with the editors. The benefits of serving as a reviewer are potentially great. Not only will you learn about others' research, you will improve your own critical skills and confirm your standing as a knowledgeable scientist in the eyes of the editors. You own future papers will be taken more seriously if you do good reviews.
给中国杂志投稿和给外国杂志投稿不大一样。有的催化文章投中国化学不中，投Journal of Molecular Catalysis A却能中。而有的美国化学会志两页快报投中国化学倒未必会中，因为审稿人看不懂。外国的催化杂志审稿偏重于总体印象，有时候审稿人对实验提不出意见，就说这篇文章没有趣、没有用，还没有达到该杂志的水平，建议投其它差的杂志。越是出名的审稿人，审起稿子越是高屋建瓴，评价该文章在该课题中的地位和意义，而很少死扣字句的错误。
下面我从一些摘录一下审稿人看什么。了解这些，即可以帮助自己成为合格的审稿人，又能促使写作者从审稿人角度挑剔的审视自己的文章，进行修改。
Communicating Science: A Practical Guide, Springer, p. 102.
Before starting on your task, jot down your answers to a list of questions such as:
1) Is this the appropriate journal for publication? If not, can I suggest a better medium?
2) Is this paper significant/important? Why? Why not?
3) Is it comprehensive with respect to its subject matter?
4) Are there omissions?
5) Are there mistakes? Inaccuracies?
6) Is the work reproducible from the evidence provided?
7) Do some of the authors' assertations need to be qualified?
8) Does the paper conform to the high standards as previous contributions from the same group?
9) Is the writing clear and fluid? Can it be improved? How?
10) Are there mispellings? Typos?
11) Is the bibliography (reference) adequant?
12) Is the artwork necessary and complelling?
13) Is the title adequate?
14) Should the abstract be rewritten?
15) Can I suggest cuts in the manuscript?
16) How can I sum up in a sentence or two my overall assessment?
The ACS Style Guide (Third Edition), p. 74.
The entire manuscript should be read carefully and critically. Most reviewers read a manuscript more than once. Manuscripts should be rated on technical quality, significance of the work, importance to the research field, and adequacy of expression. Many reviewers divide their reviews into general comments and specific, detailed comments. In the general section, reviewers draw attention to both the strong and weak points of the manuscript, the concepts, the objectives, and the methods. Like an author writing a manuscript, reviewers should write reviews in a comprehensive but concise manner, addressing the questions presented below:
Suggested Topics for A Peer Review
1) Are the methods (experimental section) adequately described and referenced?
2) Are there any unsupported conclusions?
3) Is there anything that is confusing or ambiguous?
4) Do figures and tables appropriately illustrate the data?
5) Is the introduction clear and informative?
6) Is either the introduction or discussion longer than necessary, and do they make sense in relation to the subject and the data?
7) Although the discussion is the appropriate place for speculation, is it excessive?
8) Are the appropriate references cited? Are the references accurate?
9) Is English usage and grammar adequate?
10) Is the length of the manuscript unwarranted? Suggestions on how a manuscript can be shortened are appreciated by editors.
11) Is the use of color warrented? Printing color is a significant expense for the publisher.
Essential Skills for Science and Technology, Oxford University Press, p. 161.
Critical analysis
1) Is the article appropriate for its target audience?
2) Does the article build on prior research?
3) Does the article reflect a good knowledge or previous literature in the field?
4) Does the authors identify the problem or issue clearly and explain its relevance?
5) Did the authors choose the best research method and approach? Was it executed properly?
6) Were the methodology, findings, and reasons for their conclusions logically and clearly explained?
7) Do the authors make appropriate comparisons to similar events, cases, or occurances?
8) Are the ideas really new or do the authors merely repackage old ideas with new names?
9) Were there adequate and appropriate examples and illustrations?
10) Do the authors discuss everything they promise in the abstract, introduction, and outline?
11) Does the article make a contribution to its field? If not, in what way should it have made a contribution and why didn't it?
12) What are the article's strengths and weaknesses?
13) What are its limitations and boundaries?
14) Did it discuss all the important aspects in its domain thoroughly?
15) Overall, how complete and thorough a job did the authors do? Did they justify their conclusions adequately? Did they provide enough background information to make their work comprehensible?
16) How confident are you in the article's results? Is it convincing?
以上我摘录了审稿人的思考问题。应该说上述问题比较“文”，比如文章的布局和思路等。审稿人更多问“理”的问题，如具体实验细节不清楚等。写审稿意见首先要写本文用什么方法研究了什么？新颖性和重要性如何？强项和弱项是什么？最大的问题是什么？推荐不推荐发表？在论述主要问题、主要矛盾以后，给出其它一条一条的小的修改意见。如果审稿人的审稿意见只有一句“很好，值得发表”，或者“不好，应该退稿”，而不讲出具体理由，那么这样的审稿意见可信性就降低了，给编辑的印象也不好，说明审稿人没有仔细看。好的审稿意见不但给出总体评价，而且给出具体修改意见，指出第几页第几行。这说明审稿人仔细地看了文章。
投稿与审稿
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-71964-37933.html
上一篇：我阅读和撰写综述的体会
下一篇：文章讲解------Applied Catalysis A
