初晓英:如何在国际高影响因子出版物发表论文

2016-11-10 初晓英

  Review process 审稿流程

  Professional editors

  Staff editors & Board of Reviewing Editors- review or reject?

  External in-depth review

  Reject, revise, accept

  Assist authors communicate research

  Academic editors

  Review or reject?

  Can serve as reviewers or send for external in-depth review

  Reject, revise, accept

  Science期刊出版模式

  Science期刊编辑的要求和职责

  Have a PhD + postdoc in area of expertise

  Evaluate manuscript submissions

  Facilitate the peer review process

  Decide what to publish, what to reject

  Travel to meetings/lab visits

  Commission reviews, plan special issues

  Liaise with other departments at Science/AAAS

  How do we decide which papers get sent for in-depth review? 如何决定送审

  Board of Reviewing Editors

  >100 practicing scientists

  Help us assess which papers should be sent for in-depth review

  Assess significance of the work

  Suggest reviewers

  Can act as mediators during later stages of review

  Why are papers rejected without review?来稿直接被拒的原因

  Typical reasons for rejection at this stage:

  Question addressed in not of broad interest and therefore belongs in a specialty journal

  Question addressed is interesting, but data do not support conclusions

  Unconvincing data, technical flaws (more of a problem after review)

  Too descriptive

  How do editors select reviewers?编辑如何选择审稿人

  Board suggestions

  Database records

  Web/literature searches

  Deciphering suggested/excluded lists from authors

  Variety of experience levels, backgrounds, locations, institutions, etc.

  What is asked of reviewers?对审稿人的要求

  Critique the quality of experiments and validity of interpretation in a constructive manner

  Distinguish from related publications or prior work

  Discuss the paper’s significance and likely impact:

          -In its own field

          -In a broader context

  Accept or Reject? 过?不过?

  Common reasons to reject after review:

  Incremental advance over previous work—better for a specialty journal

  Data do not fully support the conclusions

  Flawed analysis

  Is part of an ongoing debate, but does not resolve it

特别声明:本文转载仅仅是出于传播信息的需要,并不意味着代表本网站观点或证实其内容的真实性。
如果作者不希望被转载,请与我们联系。

微信订阅号

微信服务号

合作伙伴

友情链接

关于学术桥 | 联系我们 | 一对一服务平台

京ICP备12045350号-20 京公网安备110108902063号

—中国教育在线旗下网站— 
© 赛尔互联(北京)教育科技有限公司版权所有