I Have a Research Support System

Room 218.

Teacher Wei sat down in front of his desk, tapped the table with two fingers, and said in a deep voice:

There are two pieces of news, one good news and one bad news.

Xu Qiu and Chen Wanqing looked at each other, but did not answer.

He thought to himself, it can't be about the article, it means that one of the two of them's article is not cool.

Fortunately, Teacher Wei didn't make them tangled up for too long, and continued:

The article you submitted before returned two opinions this morning, one after the other.

There are basically no problems with Xu Qiu's article. The opinions given by the three reviewers are all positive. One suggested to publish it directly, and the other two raised some minor problems.

but……

Xu Qiu took a look at the senior sister, she looked pitiful, and obviously knew that her article was in danger.

Chen Wanqing, for your opinion on the ternary blending system article, there are two minor revisions, one disagrees with publication, and finally the editor suggested to transfer to a new journal. Wei Xingsi said:

However, I carefully read the comments given by the reviewer who suggested rejecting the manuscript, and he did not make specific comments, but just objected without thinking.

I think you can try to appeal to the editor to see if you can change the reviewer to re-examine.

Don’t do the experiment today, just get the article done first, and I have forwarded the relevant emails to your mailbox.

OK.

The two nodded and left the office.

...

My first article was really ill-fated. I didn't expect to be rejected again when I submitted to ACSAMI. Chen Wanqing said:

Generally, when publishing this kind of small article in the second district, if the reviewer's opinion is two positive and one negative, the editor will most likely make minor or major changes.

Didn't it mean that you can appeal, and you can also switch. Xu Qiu said.

The appeal is unlikely to pass, and the original verdict is usually upheld.

My article should be between publishable and non-publishable. The editor may have index requirements for publishing in new journals, so he suggested that we transfer to new journals.

After all, several major journal companies are also competing with each other, and they all want to retain manuscripts as much as possible.

As for the new journal that was just launched this year, it will take two or three years for the impact factor to come out, let alone when the Chinese Academy of Sciences gives its JCR division.

Articles published in journals that are not classified by the school are considered as SCI District 4 by default, and cannot be used as graduation requirements. For students, it is no different from not being published.

I see. Xu Qiu said.

Hey, I guess I'm going to change the format again. I've tried both ACS and RSC, and only Weily is left. Chen Wanqing sighed.

Sister, don't panic, maybe there will be a turning point, let's check Teacher Wei's email first. Xu Qiu comforted.

...

He opened the mailbox, and there was an email from Teacher Wei at the top of the inbox.

Fwd: Revision request for your submission to Advanced Electronic Materials (aelm.201234567)

Forward: A request for revision of an article you have submitted to an AELM journal. (DOI number of the document)

Xu Qiu is no longer unfamiliar with DOI. The translation of its scientific name is to identify the content object in the digital environment, that is, the code used to identify the document.

This number is automatically generated when the article is submitted, and in most cases there is a one-to-one correspondence with the literature.

If a document has been published but not included in a journal, if you want to cite this document, you can cite its DOI number.

In addition, by entering the DOI number of the document on the website, the corresponding document can be queried.

However, even when a document is found, usually only a title summary and a few image previews are visible.

Because the literature of most journals is paid to view the full text, and the annual fee is very expensive.

Schools, research institutes and other scientific research institutions will pay for mainstream journals to facilitate teachers, students and researchers to access literature.

For journal companies, they charge contributors for publishing articles, and other people also pay them for reading articles, while the reviewers they find are voluntary labor without remuneration.

Periodical companies have been doing this kind of two-to-three-hundred-year-old business that charges both ends and makes no loss.

The journal company is a genuine channel, and some people do document piracy, or it is called a document sharing platform, as long as you enter the DOI code, you can directly download the PDF version of the corresponding document.

...

The text of the email is the opinions of editors and reviewers, and it contains a lot of content. Xu Qiu roughly read it.

It is preliminarily judged that among the three reviewers, two have a high probability of being domestic, and the other has a high probability of being a foreigner, at least a scholar who has been doing scientific research abroad for a long time.

Reviewers are generally not public, so if you want to know who they are, you can only rely on guesswork.

However, reviewers can usually see the information of the contributors. Although there is also the option of anonymous submission, most people will not use it.

The opinion given by the suspected foreigner is suggested to publish directly.

His comments are written more casually, like replying to a post on a forum.

There are only a few dozen words, first a few simple comments, and finally publish as it is (recommended to publish directly)

Of course, some foreigners may start to praise you for doing a good job, but there is an inexplicable turning point at the end:

However, I think your work is not suitable for publication in this journal.

Some even said bluntly, This journal is too high for your work.

The translation is, Your work is not worthy of publication in this journal.

The comments given by the other two reviewers are minor changes, and their review comments are more templated and more subtle:

First, a brief summary of Xu Qiu's work content, Researchers such as Xu Q. used flexible PEN substrates in benchmark organic photovoltaic systems,...

Basically, it is to copy and modify the abstract and conclusion of the paper.

At the end, it says this work is good, it would be better if you can refer to the following suggestions

Then it is to list some questions in the article in sections, which are easier to answer.

In addition, one of the reviewers requested several references.

Generally, this kind of citations are the articles of the reviewers themselves or their research groups.

Xu Qiu searched those documents using Google's mirror image, and it turned out that they were all the same corresponding author, and the corresponding author's unit was in China.

This time there is no supplementary experiment involved, so it is easier to modify the article, just prepare the reply file and the revised text.

The response file needs to be answered item by item according to all the comments given by the reviewers.

For the revised text, the modified place should be highlighted, and some journals also require an additional file with specific revised content.

After everything is done, upload the two files to the designated website link.

The revision comments given by the editor are usually time-limited, generally ranging from two weeks to two months.

If you cannot submit the revised manuscript on time due to special circumstances, you need to explain the situation to the editor and ask him to reopen the website link.

...

In the evening, Xu Qiu and Chen Wanqing handed over the revised article and the reply file to Mr. Wei and uploaded it to the website.

Of course, the nature of the two is different, one is to submit a revised version normally, and the other is used to appeal.

Thanks to Mayfly 88q for the 100-point reward.