几天前收到Q博士email过来的一份论文预印本，很高兴他本次投稿的曲折有了一个圆满的结局。

该文于3月份投往欧洲某海洋学期刊，6月26日收到该刊编辑的退稿通知：I have now received the referee's report on your paper which you sent for publication in M and I attach the referee's comments below. 审稿意见的大意是该文揭示了一个有趣的现象，但其物理机制的论证不足，如此云云。

正常情况下，Q博士似乎应当进一步思考这个有趣现象的物理机制，再考虑如何重新写作和投稿。

可是，Q在英国访问期间与英国皇家学会院士T教授进行过切磋，完成该文初稿后又与T教授进行了通讯交流，T对Q揭示的现象很感兴趣，并撰文阐述自己的观点。二人商定分别将自己的文章投寄同一份期刊，T在其论文的引言中也多次提及Q文(Submitted for publication)，并在致谢中表示“I am grateful to Professor Q for showing me his draft paper on …, which stimulated this study.”

7月20日，T通过email通知Q，他的稿件获得很好评价，稍作修改后即可发表。

显然，Q不能再考虑如何重新写作和投稿了。于是他一方面告诉T教授自己的退稿遭遇，另一方面寻求赶快发表其文的其他途径。T得知Q文退稿的消息后很感诧异，并在7月21日主动给编辑发邮件解释自己论文的写作背景，并建议编辑将他本人的文章送给Q文的审稿人阅读，进而提请编辑和审稿人重新考虑对Q文的决定。

(My paper is a companion to that submitted to M by Q on ….  Having written to Prof Q to tell him about the state of my draft, I have learnt that his draft has been rejected. It appears that the reviewer of Q's draft had possibly not seen my work and consequently is not aware that Q's work provides the basis, motivation and background for the study which I undertook to explain ....

I wonder whether the reviewer's reservations about Q et al might be altered if he/she were to have sight of my draft ?

I apologize for troubling you, but as you will appreciate, it might be to the convenience of readers to see the two papers published alongside one-another.…)

一周后的7月27日，Q收到那份海洋学期刊的稿件录用通知 (I have now received the referee’s report on your paper….  I am pleased to say that it is acceptable for publication in M.)

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任胜利科学网博客。
链接地址：https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-38899-260645.html

上一篇：中国要办自己的优秀学术期刊 (韩启德)
下一篇：2008年SCI收录的中国大陆期刊及其在本学科中排名