中国病毒学论坛|我们一直在坚持！

标题: 转移帖：编辑决定信(Editor's Decision Letter) [打印本页]
作者: 满清帝国    时间: 2015-5-21 10:43
标题: 转移帖：编辑决定信(Editor's Decision Letter)
题目：编辑决定信(Editor's Decision Letter)
4 \, N& [; l8 A! S) A原作者：ms003
+ [+ H: r/ H1 g
: k# K" b0 y1 U$ V% p# L- y% t
2 @6 I( F: M4 g* `1 Z

- X5 ]* L9 D! h7 o[原创]编辑决定信(Editor's Decision Letter)   Post By：2008-5-29 10:43:06 4 c, k1 \# [+ r3 `

  L* z+ n$ y) Z; i2 {编辑决定信典型的格式
5 L% D- i  [3 @/ x6 [3 ?* x9 }2 O" o9 K7 }+ t+ x! z

1 d5 G- O: B3 x! [( S
# E' I. X# s9 b5 d接受Acceptance (exciting moment every one enjoys!)
) m7 u& n. Y6 R4 D4 b
  l! S0 N( r3 l5 ?; I6 @9 M·        I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication in future issue of (journal name)….
+ S# R& N: ?# z. f
6 m  `) w9 y5 a) ?* P) [* b7 ?' F' ^: f

* w3 @7 i; H7 y6 L小修Minor revision (most likely to be accepted)& n* m* L2 Z$ g4 l
6 E3 y7 l* U( E; }
·        I regret that your manuscript has not been able to be accepted for publication in its present (current) format. However, we wish to re-consider (would like to invite) a revised manuscript if you are willing to address the comments raised by the reviewers.
; R) a, S& W+ C  k' \2 E: N, n% r9 j6 q; t: M
; {6 ?& [+ b! h9 m

* n. ~9 c- }: H$ ]8 |* h大修Major revision (revised paper sent back to the same reviewers, and may be accepted if the reviewers are satisfied with authors’ replies and the revised version)) l$ w' {& E9 Z2 Q' A/ t

( O7 t8 X( H" X* j' f8 D·        I regret that your manuscript has not been able to be accepted for publication in its present (current) format. However, we would like to re-consider a revised manuscript if you are willing to address the comments raised by the reviewers. Please be reminded that I cannot guarantee that your revised paper will be accepted.
/ x, e/ d1 z! t6 A" ^( E$ M; ~7 _. K# o6 w% T: N  a$ F6 Z: {8 V
* F1 M! r4 ~/ |+ l8 B" l

, G( v7 i- h" Q) h) J2 a& d2 r·        I regret that your manuscript has not been able to be accepted for publication in its present (current) format. However, we would like to re-consider a revised manuscript if you are willing to address the comments raised by the reviewers. Please be informed that your revised manuscript must be re-submitted as a new manuscript).* M2 O2 R/ v. _# B
  u0 T; Y2 t- t& k& g+ S

$ k# q) o/ r! ^# F9 k& Q! Y
0 t: {3 O1 v0 g审稿后拒稿Rejection with reviewers’ comments* o7 `0 ^4 |- {5 h  A
4 Q+ W+ |6 F3 h1 R2 N7 X1 E
·        I regret that your manuscript is not accepted for publication in this journal, due to its relatively low priority (or due to the limited space of our journal). However, we wish to include the comments from the reviewers, which may be of help when you submit your paper to another journal. Thanks for your submission your work to our journal.  Y4 b: k8 }- O! J( a, [

! m" q% t0 s' d- w0 G# V# k, ~) q: y+ b$ @. U# A4 r
. `. Y& `) g, {+ G
直接拒稿Rejection without reviewers’ comments+ F; D9 R3 Z; J. B% s( z% A
0 x% m; g# f' F9 k
·        I regret that your manuscript is not accepted for publication in this journal, because it is beyond the scopes of our journal (or due to its low priority). To save your time, I would return your manuscript and  wish your success in another appropriate journal. Thanks for your submission your work to our journal.
; C/ L2 d% m3 r# v

* b# g) G: a0 H
作者: 满清帝国    时间: 2015-5-21 10:43
by ms0039 K& Y* r% J5 p4 a) O/ L8 ^1 b2 W

) T) G/ C' h- o) f' s+ r  h  B
- v% x8 o9 F. x5 G6 C$ s- O: y拒稿原因：
* Z$ E  e; S, v/ `3 x& |2 u
( D( J0 q3 v3 w8 ^6 A# U( FFundamentally weak hypothesis ) t! _4 T" @% U; l; p/ ?: w2 S: B
Lack of clinical relevance
' c6 _1 C; ~2 E* I  A# BOld knowledge with no new or useful material
9 C; o1 m- b, n. t" N: IReasonable text, but images are of very poor quality, are inappropriate, or are incorrectly interpreted * R# O% \; c0 d/ `
Too many methodological errors 9 w: I7 O/ A; ~+ P( j: p9 Q
Hypothesis adequate, but poor study design, methodology, or statistics & u3 Z6 M- i5 [) X5 G7 N; a8 d
Lacking in logic; initial premise not logically supported by methods and results ( x0 O* n7 U) b1 A" ~
None of the other reasons, but reviewers do not like the article
3 t& ]9 |: M% uPreviously published 2 ^4 R) }8 F& o. f" N% P- D
Sample population too small or biased to justify results and conclusion
+ o+ l: C; }2 j' H& B- jWell written but better suited for another journal " q' }4 G# n( [5 g/ d4 l
Major language problems; English not primary language of author 2 ]/ n0 F4 j' D9 S* t( ?6 n
Too poorly written, phrased, or presented ' j% ]6 M, d5 s& A
Failure to follow the author guidelines $ q: p6 c7 G, S, Q) o' c/ {6 c* g
Lack of correlation between purpose and results
: v# ~8 A+ `4 D' |/ aPoor statistics, beyond salvage
/ `1 g! x2 l6 k: C. ]' _9 Y: B% P+ }3 g9 F5 g2 x( L3 B$ @2 z$ C% b9 q

0 W2 N* t6 \3 [1 v) E% {; l+ b8 N( A# ], a/ X. G0 Y

' ?  D6 `# H: Y+ `如何处理被拒稿
8 {/ A5 z3 Y  G3 d* {; l8 r+ \( @) C# q6 W0 d4 W8 n
已审拒稿Rejection with reviewers’ comments" D, P1 e) r' r; k

9 w* J9 p4 F5 e) o9 f& j' e' N' O1.      Revise the paper according to the reasonable comments made by the reviewers, and ignore those you don’t like;
; Z. G5 J. [8 ]9 x( x; v; c
# ^1 u8 Z7 \  }( `0 N7 r2.      Format the paper according to the new targeted journal;
( M* l/ ~$ A& z2 [  T0 ~
9 I) m4 h" g0 h0 S3.      In most cases, the new targeted journal has a lower IF than the previous one. However, if you believe that the reviewers made very constructive and important comments and you have fully addressed the comments, you may try a journal with even a higher impact factor (IF).
6 o2 J7 w  A" p5 E0 o# s
* F6 \: ]  h: J2 t3 E$ M4.      One example: a new serology for H. pylori infection.
  c9 a# X4 s5 C4 `9 A4 T) `2 D
* t+ p" h/ \& ~) I  g·        Submission 1 – study included untreated patients, rejected by a journal with an IF of 1.8, but with comment recommending inclusion of patients with eradication therapy.
1 S) E( a, @% _; o) S3 ]/ n- Y# }" R/ @" b( X! ~
·        Submission 2 - study included both groups, and accepted by a journal with an IF of 2.5.6 }3 Q* G4 I$ t( i: i3 C4 l

9 o, H' `' u* E" v- j( W& ^2 V3 Z7 d# R: Y: @% R  E

- a4 _. q: C6 P直接拒稿Rejection without comments
2 E3 j9 a) e; O1 B5 ?  k2 }
: r2 U. I& {( O/ `0 X; r3 J! D' c6 YFormat the paper according to the new targeted journal;
: B  U. _8 T. \( M9 U3 W" |5 U- J: n
The new targeted journal should have a lower IF than the previous one;9 ~1 S/ m  u# |- Y& y

: W4 |6 e3 p" p2 ], oBe prepared to be rejected the second time.
& O+ |9 \' J2 M, l8 g: \, v" q! F8 W; O

5 ]$ L# @4 b0 Z% k* p! z5 Y& ~" a7 ~# n. i
如何处理修回稿
! \/ ?9 C# R4 A( ^' i. O
: |% k7 s8 T' a; r; E  S7 LMost papers need revision before acceptance5 L7 Y  H" j  Y* U$ l8 ]. R# _4 |

: h: Y/ v% E) e% J1. Recommended procedures for revision $ X9 R# I' K6 n  e& E3 A, C( k

6 M0 D3 d. [; z" VRead the editor’s letter and Reviewers’ comments carefully & D: n' K! S$ v$ R; J1 ^$ b
Try to draft the “point-by-point” replies to the comments first 3 L0 s1 O4 |0 r% A$ R' ], [! a2 k
Then, revise your paper according to the drafted “point-by-point” replies
! I4 _/ n% \' L3 \; F/ X4 V, DFinalize your “point-by-point” replies  and revisions in the paper
5 G# m1 x. r; L' Z& ^If additional experiments or data are required, do it in a reasonable timeline- neither in days nor in months+ @% A( Z/ H1 Q  x7 F! V, J, g
2. Recommended attitude toward reviewers’ comments for revision
3 R- X6 T6 L# Z4 }
8 q8 Y- U2 ]3 X- M4 I3 @1 lRemember that most reviewers are helping both the journal and authors. Some reviewers point out how to improve the presentation of the paper, or even edit the paper.
% B& B+ |/ G8 ^# Y
& h2 e5 \5 c+ g  b& W' FSo, never blame the reviewers for not understanding your paper, or deliberately picking up the weaknesses of your paper, or bias.; P8 K  N, \6 `) e

- M+ {! T! r+ c# Z# p6 u( ^: k) w+ s& m4 f
8 l3 @, x+ y! N1 g3 D
3. Recommended wordings in the “point-by-point” reply letter
0 e- X: O7 t7 h' i* R; G( T! t" x& H0 J
The preparation of (wording in) the “point-by-point” reply letter is even more important than the revision of the manuscript of the paper.
& ]% X9 J; M+ T& L. _& A, |. r+ P$ J1 A$ r4 K! C
' K2 P! h5 h) U$ X0 X, H( ~

* B! K9 Y2 C) k6 R* gBefore the “point-by-point” reply letter, a sentence like the following will give the reviewer(s) a good impression:
" a" K- E  {. L# q1 C( Y9 w, ?( ?/ v+ {! a( \, h% E/ Q+ {
If the comments are really good - First of all, we wish to thank the reviewer(s) for the(ir) constructive, encouraging and positive comments ' _, H1 }' k7 F; R* v& F

/ X7 ?: ~( R- a+ wIf the comments are mixed - First of all, we wish to thank the reviewer(s) for the(ir) constructive, and useful comments 6 y( a$ U; v: c5 }
If the comments are somewhat critical -First of all, we wish to thank the reviewer(s) for the(ir) constructive, and pertinent comments which definitely help improve our manuscript
9 x6 q$ u7 z* E1 P  w2 ^! ^Then,
: M) t4 k4 O$ [- T# h/ v$ F; q2 m2 b7 ^3 n2 z: J9 H& r! E
If you agree with the comments and you can respond satisfactorily $ U5 e! Q' A3 s, h
8 j$ z% G, X* N, B) n' i, q
We agree with the reviewer that…, and …. (describe what action taken - correct/modify/address…)
5 r0 C* V  F3 p' E, q  eWe accept the suggestion…., and …. (describe what action taken- correct/modify/address…) 1 M' [* i$ L7 E5 W% l
We have corrected/modified/addressed … according to the reviwer’s comment/suggestion : D+ Z8 Q4 a% I9 R2 q; F
We thank the reviewer for pointing out the important issue…, and (describe what action taken-correct/modify/address…)   `7 s- `' X/ S5 M1 z4 Q
As requested by the reviewer, we performed additional experiments, and the results have been included…
% H1 B9 r8 Y0 y* ^8 s  `; w) KWe thank the reviewer for suggesting an alternative explanation/mechanism for the phenomenon/observation in our study, which has been incorporated in the Discussion of the revised version of the manuscript." y/ g; p" x' W( A$ D/ a' Z1 D
If you agree with the comments but you cannot provide additional experimental evidence
/ q/ e% x9 ?/ V& u) C. V1 F8 D' p. x! ^' h
We agree with the reviewer that …….  However, …. (provide reasons why you cannot incorporate the comment in the revised paper- limitations of time or techniques). We would like to address this issue in our future studies. This point has been discussed in the Discussion of the revised version of the manuscript.
/ |( ?( h: T! |  {& WThe reviewer has made a very good point on the issue. However, previous similar studies have demonstrated that ….. (the data should answer the reviewer’s point). These observations may also applicable to the population we studied although further studies are required to confirm it. This point has been discussed in the Discussion of the revised version of the manuscript.; ^8 b0 o0 q4 \/ c. w3 e
If you don’t agree or partially agree with the comments" X8 r4 ]) n5 v8 k+ Q) m; j

& A/ Y6 c5 v7 q8 qWe apologize for the misunderstanding caused by our unclear descriptions/statements on “xxxxxx”. We have xxxxxx (clarification or further explanation to correct the reviewer’s comment) in the revised version
, w8 n% s3 P0 }/ w5 E6 h- z  t  _We are sorry that our descriptions/statements on “xxxxxx may be misleading. We have xxxxxx.(clarification or further explanation to correct the reviewer’s comment) in the revised version " t2 s+ c5 Q* ?7 q" l
We thank the reviewer for suggesting an opposite explanation for the phenomenon/mechanism, which has been incorporated in the Discussion of the revised version of the manuscript



欢迎光临 中国病毒学论坛|我们一直在坚持！ (http://virology.com.cn/) Powered by Discuz! X3.2