【原创】《Journal of Hydrology》再次失败... 已有3人参与
★
小木虫(金币+1):奖励一下，鼓励发有价值的话题
最近看有虫虫把一年前的贴子“地学口的朋友，有投过《Journal of Hydrology》的么”又续上讨论了 （emuch/bbs/viewthread. ... ghlight=&page=1），其实我本不打算再更新了，但确实又想再留下些什么，无奈原贴主文已无法进行编辑，所以另开一篇，算是我这篇稿件冲击JH的一个过程说明吧，希望能对地学口或是想投JH期刊的虫虫有所帮助！
虽不是学水文学出身，但垂涎 Journal of Hydrology期刊由来已久。电脑里Endnote中也是JH的期刊文献最多（因为平时读的最多）。这已经是我第二篇稿件冲击JH了，可惜还是失败，之前篇投JH被拒的稿件改投IF=1。3的期刊，目前正小修中。
言归正传吧
[2009-07-02] 稿件新投稿
editor assigned是什么意思
[2009-07-03] 稿子分配了Manuscript No，状态变为Editor Assigned
[2009-07-06] 稿子状态还是Editor Assigned，但时间更新了一下
[2009-07-24] 稿子状态还是Editor Assigned，但时间再次更新
[2009-08-12] 我有点等不及了，给editor发了封电邮去催了催
[2009-09-01] 稿子状诚变为"reviewer invited"
[2009-09-03] 稿子状态变为"under review"
[2009-11-03] 稿子状态不变，还是“under review”，但时间更新了！
[2009-12-02] 稿子状态变为"with editor"
[2009-12-03] 稿子状态变为"Decision in Process"
[2009-12-08] Reject，同时收到comments！
*****************************************************************************
Dear ***,
I very much regret to have to tell you that publication in our journal is not recommended. An explanation for this decision is given in the attached review reports (and on ees.elsevier/hydrol/). I hope that the comments contained therein will be of use to you.
Thank you for your interest in our journal.
With kind regards,
Andreas Bardossy
Editor
Journal of Hydrology
--------------------------------------------
Reviewer #1: Comments on paper by ***. submitted to Journal of Hydrology
This paper addressed **** by analyzing ****. Generally, it is a kind of conventional research. Actually, overwhelmingly abundant studies are available concerning ****. Any more similar studies will not further help to understand ****. Besides, to my best knowledge, there are some studies addressing *****. Repeated studies of similar topics are not attractive and impressive. There are other similar studies and I can not list them all here. The authors should thoroughly review and discuss the previous studies, addressing the novelty of the current study when compared to the previous ones. I think the publication of the study in the Journal of Hydrology requires novelty of the study or the knowledge contribution of the study to the hydrology. However, the current study can not satisfy these requirements. Therefore, I recommend rejection of this paper.
不死心，在原稿的基础上，进行了大幅修改（其实基本相当于重写了，监测数据增加四倍…），重投，重写完后自己经感觉相当良好，由于是在原稿基础上进行的修改，我甚至在cover letter中和editor说“we also prefer to suggest the same reviewers (reviewers for No.我被拒的那篇稿号), we are confident that they will be satisfied for the new manuscript.”。当时，感觉真的是太良好了（自大的觉的：这稿子怎么可能会拒？），于是，开始了新一轮流
程
[2010-01-21]  Submitted to Journal
[2010-01-26]  Editor Assigned
[2010-02-03]  Reviewers invited
[2010-02-12]  Under Review
[2010-03-29]  Reviewers invited
[2010-03-30]  Under Review
[2010-05-28]  With Editor
[2010-06-01]  Decision in Process
[2010-06-07]  Reject，同时收到comments！
*****************************************************************************
Dear ***,
I very much regret to have to tell you that publication in our journal is not recommended. An explanation for this decision is given in the attached review reports (and on ees.elsevier/hydrol/). I hope that the comments contained therein will be of use to you.
Thank you for your interest in our journal.
With kind regards,
Andras Bardossy
Editor
Journal of Hydrology
..........................................................
Reviewer #1:
Gnearnal comment: A good paper should be the one: 1) being devoted to address an important scientific problem; 2) developing a novel method; or 3) focusing improvement of an existing method. It is also acceptable to answer a problem by using existing methods. However, I can not find the strong motivations that can justify the current study after finish reading the "Introduction" section. Besides, the objectives of this study are not impressive or attractive yet. Based on the literature review by the authors, the current study is more like a repeated research when taking into the published literatures. What are the novel points of this study when compared to the published literatures? What are the differences between the current study and the published ones? In summary, I can not find any merits of publication of this paper in Journal of Hydrology. Straightforward rejection is what I recommend strongly.
Detailed comments略)
Reviewer #2:
Gnearnal comment: This paper is a good paper. It supplements statistical analysis with phy
sical evidence to investigate ******. One weakness of numerous previous studies is the dependence on statistical methods alone in analyzing ****, often **** without investigating other possible factors. This paper follows a balanced approach that investigates the effects *********** to conclude a rough contribution of each cause. I think this paper can be informative to the audience of the Journal of Hydrology, and thus recommend its acceptance. I urge the authors to carefully review the language of the paper (some suggestions are given below).
Detailed comments略)
*****************************************************************************
其实看到Reviewer #1的comments，心中很是不服的（百分百的国内审稿人），想着申诉的，后来看看论坛中其他虫虫关于申诉的贴子，决定不在这浪费时间了，直接改投了！

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。