前些时候看到有些虫友论文被拒，灰心。但个人认为，被拒的论文不一定与你的论文水平相关，有很多因素都决定了最终的决定，例如审稿人的水平、审稿人的个人人品、杂志的办刊宗旨与你论文思想不一致、论文中某些没有照顾到的地方，但总之，只要论文具有一点创新性，都是有价值发表的，被拒了不要灰心，如果自己认为自己的工作有价值，主要是审稿人在这方面的知识不足造成的，强烈建议详细修改补充论文后和编辑争辩，毕竟科学的东西只支持正义和真理。
7月份，我写的一篇论文被涂层领域一著名期刊拒了，虽然是第二作者（学生的工作），也不是 通讯作者，但看了审稿人意见后非常生气，写了一个很长的信给编辑对审稿人的个人水平及人品进行了指责，后来编辑看后表示对我的理解，并回复让我们重投论文（因为上次投的已经形成决议了），他会在一个月内给出最终结果，后来经过我和学生详细讨论，把论文内容进行大幅度改善（主要是讨论部分）重投出去，两个星期后论文被直接接收。从这件事件，让我对论文投稿又有了一些新的认识，希望大家鼓足勇气，多发paper，挣钱娶媳妇买车。下面把编辑来信（两次）和我的回信贴出来，和大家交流，欢迎提供宝贵意见。

第一次编辑的拒稿信：


Dear ***,

Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. You will see that they are advising against publication of your work. Therefore I must reject it.

For your guidance, I append the reviewers' comments below.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

Yours sincerely,

***
Editor
***


Reviewers' comments:


Reviewer #1:
Generally, the work is unique but it is not acceptable due to incomplete explanation and routine writing for only publication.

In Fig. 1. (b), at the magnification x500, the original scale bar was 50 microns in the photo. But authors made a new scale bar which is 20 microns. This is kind of fraud!!!!
English Grammar and style are not satisfied.
My conclusion is that any manuscript from the authors should not be published in this journal.

editor bar我的回复：
Dear Editor***

Thank you for your kind attention to consider our work in***. I am terribly sorry for such a terrible conclusion made by the reviewer because of our minor fault about the scale bar in Fig. 1. So, I should give a rebuttal against the comments of the reviewer. I have not been persuaded and I consider the comments are unreasonable and unfair for our work.
I don’t know why the reviewer gave such nasty comments and made a so terrible conclusion about our future work. I doubt whether he has read our manuscript carefully and completely or not.
In Fig.1(b), it is a minor mistake about the scale bar made by authors. I debt that it is very easy to remove the original one in the picture by means of some advanced photo editor softwares if we want. Does the reviewer think we are attempting to cheat the readers using such an obvious mistake which everybody can find, and leaving the original one to make him think it is a “fraud” easily? Why should we do that? If the reviewer read our manuscript carefully and completely, he would not give the unreasonable assessment that “This is a ki
nd of fraud”. In our manuscript, we have never talked about the influence of the size of *** although we consider the *** do influence the ***(与尺寸相异的其它方面) of our ***. It is absolutely unnecessary for us to make this “fraud”. Please kindly judge why we made the “fraud” to make readers unhappy, and us in trouble. Why did the reviewer consider this minor mistake as an unpardonable “fraud” without thinking more about it carefully?
The reviewer said that “the work is unique”. How did he give this comment without any reasons? Since it is unique, why did he reject our work only using the simple reasons of “incomplete explanation” and “routine writing”? We try out best to explain our results. It may be incomplete because of our limitations of corresponding knowledge. But we are eager to improve and perfect it with the help from the reviewers and editors. We are not English native speakers and do realize that our English in this manuscript is not perfect. But, technique paper is different from essay. We consider that it is enough for English grammar or style in technique paper if it can make readers understand our idea and work. Of course, we also can ask help from some English writing companies to improve our English expressions. Thus, we think it is unfair that the reviewer rejected our work only using these
unimpressive excuses. It is imprudent to give his conclusion “any manuscript from the authors should not be published in this journal” according to his unfair and irresponsible judgment that Fig.1(b) is “a kind of fraud”.
As an eligible reviewer of the famous journal, he should assess the manuscript from any authors righteously and carefully. He should give reasonable and convictive evidences for his comments. The reviewer should show his understanding to the work that he is reviewing.
In short, we could not accept the comments given by the reviewer #1, and hope that he can withdraw his unjustified conclusions for our present and future work. We are pleased if the editor can justify our rebuttals.
Thank you for your patience and kind attention.
May you have a nice day!

Best Regards
Yours Sincerely
****

编辑的回信
Dear***
I understand your explanation that you made a simple mistake in Fig. 1b. If you wish to submit your revised paper, I will send it to another reviewer. In this case, however, your paper is considered to be new submission because once decision of rejection is reported using the Elsevier on-line system, the paper is removed from the web system. If you submit the revised version of your paper, I will handle it immediately in order to make a final decision hopefully in a month. I am very sorry again for reporting you the previous decision.
I am looking forward to receiving your revised paper.
With kindest regards;
***

今天收到的论文接收信（投稿两周）
Dear ***,

I am pleased to confirm that your paper "The ***" has been accepted for publication in ***.

Comments from the Editor and Reviewers can be found below.

Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.

With kind regards,

***
Editor
***

Comments from the Editors and Reviewers:


The present paper reports ***. The authors have shown that ***. The paper contains interesting results and discussion worth for publication in ***. Therefore, I recommend the publication of the present paper as is.

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。