博文
分享一篇Acta Materialia文章接受的经过
精选
||
文章是关于ZnO磁性半导体的，非常老的一个topic了，觉得没有什么可做的， 但做完后仔细分析下还有发现了些新的东西。08年6月初第一稿，由于第一次写长文章（共18页不包括图），与老板来回10来次，9月下旬定稿。由于看到好几篇类似的文章在PRB上，也觉得自己的故事比较的好，很有信心的准备投PRB ，虽然觉得没有太多的物理，9月25号投的，由于不急着要文章，中间没有看文章状态或是催稿，11月18号收到审稿意见
Dear Dr. XX,
The above manuscript has been reviewed by two of our referees. Comments from the reports are enclosed.
We regret that in view of these comments we cannot accept the paper for publication in Physical Review.
Yours sincerely,
Referee 1:
This is an interesting paper on xx. The paper is presenting new stuff which should be useful for material science community and, specifically, for specialists in xx. Another interesting result was found that.
A general conclusion was: xxx. Personally, I think the information obtained is expected and not principally
novel. My problem with the paper is about its overall impact. What is the new or interesting physics here to warrant publication in the PRB?
In general, the paper is well organized, carefully written and well done. The subject matter and style of presentation is appropriate for any material science journal. The length of the manuscript is appropriate. There are some misspellings and language mistakes which will be corrected during further editorial work.
Conclusion: The paper does not contain enough significant new physics to be
published in Phys. Rev. B. Contribution to J.Appl.Phys. is more appropriate.
Referee 2
This manuscript describes xxx. This paper contains very little new physics, especially in light of a paper recently published by the same authors on the same system （Refxx）. The quality of paper in general is not up to the standards of the Physical Review. I cannot recommend publication.
In my view, that is a fairly common sense explanation which has been known to be correct for many systems for decades and is used daily in the refining of silicon. The quality of the experimental work and its interpretation is also not quite up to the standards of the Physical Review.
Xxxxxxxxx很长一段专业问题
In summary, this paper is not of good enough quality and does not contain enough new physics to warrant publication in Phys. Rev. B.
自己也感觉文章的物理不强，事实上很多相似的文章也发在上面，并没有太多物理。另外就是我的合作者已经在APL上发表了部分结果，但我的文章在那基础上做了更深入更系统的研究，加了很多新的内容，而且我们的侧重点也不同。不管怎样，就只能改投了，想想故事还可以，就根据审稿人的建议往材料方面的投吧，老板建议投JAP，我觉得有点可惜，由于文章很长觉得Acta Materialia也很不错就投了，当初啥也没想，因为也不急着需要文章，就做了点小的修改，包括文章格式，参考文献，还加了2篇Acta的文献，11 月25号投的，中间从没看文章的状态也没有催稿，非常巧合的是1月18 （上次11月18）收到审稿意见，要求修改（没有说小修或大修）
Dear Professor XX,
I have now received an independent review of your manuscript. The referee has made suggestions for you to revise the paper. See below review. If you will address these comments in your revised paper, I shall be pleased to consider your manuscript for publication in Acta Materialia.
In the 'Response to Reviewer', please include a detailed explanation of changes made.
Please also highlight the amendments and corrections made to the original submission.
In some cases, the revision will need to be reviewed by the referee; please allow time for this process.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Editor's/Reviewer's comments:
Overall the paper is well done. The following are a list of comments and
suggestions that should be addressed followed by the text of the paper with
grammatical and puntuation changes added.
XXXXXX 6个问题
只有一个审稿人，非常的Nice, 审稿非常非常仔细，还给我上传了他帮着修改的语法副本，虽然自己投稿前看了无数遍，还有导师也严格把关，还是很多小的语法问题。还有几个问题比较的专业，把审稿意见放1个星期后，花一天时间认真改完，1月25号上传，本以为还要送审，没想到27号就收到主编来信接受。
一点经验：
1）多与老板交流，对他的疑问要逐一解答，或是尽力想办法解答，而不是回避，虽然可以不写在文章里，但自己要清楚是怎么回事。因为同样的问题有可能审稿人会提出。这是文章提高的一个必经过程，一定要自己的故事尽量自洽，要能使自己和你的老板都信服，这个时候你的文章就可以送出去了。
2）要选对期刊，但有时候做起来很难，因为你可能根据上面有的文章而类推，虽然主编有可能送审，但不同的审稿人自己会有看法的，看运气了，我查了下，我这个方向的文章在Acta上也就3，4篇，以前从来没有投过，更有意思的是，我老板不久前投PRL的文章被拒，投到Angew Chemie 居然中了，就看你怎么样把文章的意义跟那个杂志的方向相关联起来，还有就是你如果不很着急要文章的话，可以从你认为刚好可不上的杂志开始，至少可以有个审稿意见。
3）推荐审稿人问题，我PRB推荐了审稿人，Acta没有推荐，如果你研究的领域特别窄，建议多推荐几个审稿人，否则主编很有可能找不到审稿人而耽误了你的时间，并不是每个人都有时间审稿的。
4）时间的巧合：ＰＲＢ，９月２５，１１月１8； Ａｃｔａ， １１月２５， １月１８， １月２５，个人感觉，只要研究课题不是很偏的话，审稿还是比较的快，一般2个月以内，当然了，这还要大家共同维护，我帮老板审稿，一般2个星期以内给意见，否则我审不了就不会答应。
5）争取自己投稿，用老板的账号，否则有可能老板投的稿件不是最后的，或者图片不是最后修改的等等。自己投稿放心些。切忌不要仓促投稿，时间充裕保证投稿时头脑清醒顺利完成。
6）有点遗憾，虽然在Proof前非常认真的看了好几遍，还是在出版后发现错误，只能又发了改正。其实很多时候最关键的就是写文章的人，只有写的人才最清楚文章的内容，其他人也只是看看，修改下语法而已。总期待老板来把关是不现实的。
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-419688-306198.html
上一篇：真是高兴啊，博客开通了。
下一篇：你被捐了吗？
Dear Dr. XX,
The above manuscript has been reviewed by two of our referees. Comments from the reports are enclosed.
We regret that in view of these comments we cannot accept the paper for publication in Physical Review.
Yours sincerely,
Referee 1:
This is an interesting paper on xx. The paper is presenting new stuff which should be useful for material science community and, specifically, for specialists in xx. Another interesting result was found that.
A general conclusion was: xxx. Personally, I think the information obtained is expected and not principally
novel. My problem with the paper is about its overall impact. What is the new or interesting physics here to warrant publication in the PRB?
In general, the paper is well organized, carefully written and well done. The subject matter and style of presentation is appropriate for any material science journal. The length of the manuscript is appropriate. There are some misspellings and language mistakes which will be corrected during further editorial work.
Conclusion: The paper does not contain enough significant new physics to be
published in Phys. Rev. B. Contribution to J.Appl.Phys. is more appropriate.
Referee 2
This manuscript describes xxx. This paper contains very little new physics, especially in light of a paper recently published by the same authors on the same system （Refxx）. The quality of paper in general is not up to the standards of the Physical Review. I cannot recommend publication.
In my view, that is a fairly common sense explanation which has been known to be correct for many systems for decades and is used daily in the refining of silicon. The quality of the experimental work and its interpretation is also not quite up to the standards of the Physical Review.
Xxxxxxxxx很长一段专业问题
In summary, this paper is not of good enough quality and does not contain enough new physics to warrant publication in Phys. Rev. B.
自己也感觉文章的物理不强，事实上很多相似的文章也发在上面，并没有太多物理。另外就是我的合作者已经在APL上发表了部分结果，但我的文章在那基础上做了更深入更系统的研究，加了很多新的内容，而且我们的侧重点也不同。不管怎样，就只能改投了，想想故事还可以，就根据审稿人的建议往材料方面的投吧，老板建议投JAP，我觉得有点可惜，由于文章很长觉得Acta Materialia也很不错就投了，当初啥也没想，因为也不急着需要文章，就做了点小的修改，包括文章格式，参考文献，还加了2篇Acta的文献，11 月25号投的，中间从没看文章的状态也没有催稿，非常巧合的是1月18 （上次11月18）收到审稿意见，要求修改（没有说小修或大修）
Dear Professor XX,
I have now received an independent review of your manuscript. The referee has made suggestions for you to revise the paper. See below review. If you will address these comments in your revised paper, I shall be pleased to consider your manuscript for publication in Acta Materialia.
In the 'Response to Reviewer', please include a detailed explanation of changes made.
Please also highlight the amendments and corrections made to the original submission.
In some cases, the revision will need to be reviewed by the referee; please allow time for this process.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Editor's/Reviewer's comments:
Overall the paper is well done. The following are a list of comments and
suggestions that should be addressed followed by the text of the paper with
grammatical and puntuation changes added.
XXXXXX 6个问题
只有一个审稿人，非常的Nice, 审稿非常非常仔细，还给我上传了他帮着修改的语法副本，虽然自己投稿前看了无数遍，还有导师也严格把关，还是很多小的语法问题。还有几个问题比较的专业，把审稿意见放1个星期后，花一天时间认真改完，1月25号上传，本以为还要送审，没想到27号就收到主编来信接受。
一点经验：
1）多与老板交流，对他的疑问要逐一解答，或是尽力想办法解答，而不是回避，虽然可以不写在文章里，但自己要清楚是怎么回事。因为同样的问题有可能审稿人会提出。这是文章提高的一个必经过程，一定要自己的故事尽量自洽，要能使自己和你的老板都信服，这个时候你的文章就可以送出去了。
2）要选对期刊，但有时候做起来很难，因为你可能根据上面有的文章而类推，虽然主编有可能送审，但不同的审稿人自己会有看法的，看运气了，我查了下，我这个方向的文章在Acta上也就3，4篇，以前从来没有投过，更有意思的是，我老板不久前投PRL的文章被拒，投到Angew Chemie 居然中了，就看你怎么样把文章的意义跟那个杂志的方向相关联起来，还有就是你如果不很着急要文章的话，可以从你认为刚好可不上的杂志开始，至少可以有个审稿意见。
3）推荐审稿人问题，我PRB推荐了审稿人，Acta没有推荐，如果你研究的领域特别窄，建议多推荐几个审稿人，否则主编很有可能找不到审稿人而耽误了你的时间，并不是每个人都有时间审稿的。
4）时间的巧合：ＰＲＢ，９月２５，１１月１8； Ａｃｔａ， １１月２５， １月１８， １月２５，个人感觉，只要研究课题不是很偏的话，审稿还是比较的快，一般2个月以内，当然了，这还要大家共同维护，我帮老板审稿，一般2个星期以内给意见，否则我审不了就不会答应。
5）争取自己投稿，用老板的账号，否则有可能老板投的稿件不是最后的，或者图片不是最后修改的等等。自己投稿放心些。切忌不要仓促投稿，时间充裕保证投稿时头脑清醒顺利完成。
6）有点遗憾，虽然在Proof前非常认真的看了好几遍，还是在出版后发现错误，只能又发了改正。其实很多时候最关键的就是写文章的人，只有写的人才最清楚文章的内容，其他人也只是看看，修改下语法而已。总期待老板来把关是不现实的。
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-419688-306198.html
上一篇：真是高兴啊，博客开通了。
下一篇：你被捐了吗？
