从2013年开始第一次接受国外SCI期刊的审稿邀请，至今已经过去11年了。在这十多年里，基本上每年都会审理稿件，据不完全统计现在已经为TPDS、TIE、JSS、JSA、TECS、FCGS等二十多个国外SCI期刊审理过稿件。

但这次为《Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences》期刊（SCI 2区）审稿的经历是非常不愉快的，而且让我感到震惊。

2024年4月4日接受该期刊的审稿邀请， 4月16日就提交了审稿意见，5月7日编辑部就做出了决定，该稿件是需要进行修改。

我审稿的稿件是修改稿（R1版本），在系统上看到有4个审稿人，其中审稿人1和审稿人2给了accept，审稿人3给了minor revisions，我接受邀请的时候，就可以看到这三个审稿意见，当时觉得这个稿件应该没有什么问题，为什么会额外邀请我审稿呢？

但是我认真看了稿件，发现并不是我想象的那样，稿件的质量与我预期的差太远，发现问题挺多的，且还有例子的数据计算错误。要是我审理原始稿件，我肯定给拒了，但鉴于是修改稿，所以还是给了major revisions；并且提出了一下的修改建议：

The main comments are as follows:

1.In Section 1, the motivation of studying energy-aware task scheduling for non-preemptible periodic tasks with precedence and deadline constraints on a homogeneous NoC-based MPSoC should be strengthened. Some concrete examples in real industry would benefit.

2. In Section 2, the authors simply list previous studies without explaining their underlying connections. Additionally, the author does not discuss any related work on standby-sparing with shared resources. standby-sparing system is a special case of a multiprocessor system (only two processors, one is the primary processor while another is the spare processor; 

In addition, the tasks are dependent due to shared resources), where the method of task allocation to processors has a low time complexity. In many cases, simple heuristic algorithms can still achieve good results.

3. In the power model, how to calculate the f^{crit}? Based on my understanding, many works use the power model P = P_s + h(P_{ind} + C_ef^f^m), which allows for easy calculation of f^{crit}.

4. "[38] pioneered retiming to decrease the cycle period of synchronous circuits". This sentence is not written in a standard format. [38]-> The authors [38]

5. In Eq (2), The symbol b_{s,d} has already been explained above, and their explanation is repeated below, which makes it unnecessarily verbose.

6. In Page 15, the term E_{tot} is total energy, which seems to be incorrect. More precisely, it may only refer to dynamic energy. Additionally, where is ' E_{tot}' defined?

7. In Page15，The total energy of Fig. 3e seems incorrect. 0.67*0.67*0.67*6*2=3.609156.

8. Why aren't the algorithm steps in the text presented in pseudocode form?

9. What is the time complexity of the proposed algorithm?

其实，只要作者认真修改，我也没有打算拒稿，而且我提的问题也算比较容易修改，觉得难的问题，解释清楚就可以。

但让我想不到的就是，5月30日收到稿件accept通知。因为最近比较忙，我以为是我搞错了，特意登录系统查看，发现该稿件根本没有给我复审。

更让我意外的是，accept的邮件，居然多了一个审稿5，给了以下的评论：

I have carefully read the third version of the manuscript, which includes the authors' responses to the reviewers' comments. The authors have promptly addressed and largely accepted these comments. In my opinion, the manuscript can be published in its current form.

在和好友（担任多个SCI期刊的编辑，处理的稿件超过百篇）交流以后，我才明白，原来编辑是可以绕过审稿人，自行处理，但这绝对是违规操作，既然不尊重审稿人意见，为什么又要找审稿人呢？

他建议，去第三方机构投诉，因为期刊被SCI检索踢出，不尊重审稿人意见就是重要的理由。想想还是算了，自己没有那个时间也没有那个精力，也从没有在这个期刊发过文章，将来基本上也不会投稿到这个期刊。不去投诉，但不代表就什么都不做，所以就写一篇博文记录与揭露一下。

更多精彩请关注微信公众号“文忆天下”或搜索ZYWHQU

相关专题：投稿与审稿
转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自张忆文科学网博客。
链接地址：https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-827932-1436223.html

上一篇：硕士答辩现场翻车，怎一个惨字了得
下一篇：本科毕业答辩现场真有人翻车