SCI 投稿经历

------------------------------------------作者xxxx------------------------------------------日期xxxxSCI投稿经历【精品文档】【精品文档】【精品文档】【精品文档】【精品文档】【精品文档】今天收到邮件，我的一篇JournalofAppliedPhysics 论文 政研论文下载论文大学下载论文大学下载关于长拳的论文浙大论文封面下载 已被接收，心情当时还是有点激动。虽然这个杂志的影响因子不是很高，大概2.2左右吧，这也不是我的第一篇SCI论文，但回想这一年发文章的坎坎坷坷，以及亲身经历的四川大地震，心里还是有很多的感触。这篇论文是我在2008年二月份完成的最初稿，于二月九号投到PhysicsLettersA上，在经历了Technicalcheck，witheditor，underreview后，于三月二十号收到编辑的决定信，当时就傻了－拒稿！受打击了。下面是编辑的信以及审稿意见，我想把它贴出来与虫友们分享，一方面我认为，通过看审稿人的意见，可以帮助大家更好地写作，提高自己的科研水平和能力，另一方面也是答谢小木虫上很多无私的虫友们，是他们将自己的投稿经历贴在网上，与大家分享，我想我没有理由不拿出来哈！同时，也希望小木虫的虫子们能继续发扬这种精神，大家同舟共济，共同提高！好了，废话说了一大堆，不说了，下面是PhysicsLettersA的审稿意见：Ms.Ref.No.: ××××××Title:×××××PhysicsLettersADearprofessor××,Reviewers'commentsonyourworkhavenowbeenreceived.  Youwillseethattheyareadvisingagainstpublicationofyourwork.  ThereforeImustrejectit.Foryourguidance,Iappendthereviewers'commentsbelow.Thankyouforgivingustheopportunitytoconsideryourwork.Yourssincerely,×××（编辑名）EditorPhysicsLettersAReviewers'comments:Reviewer#2:ManuscriptTheauthorspresentresultsofthe3DelectronpotentialofagatedquantumpointcontactinaAlGaAs/GaAsheterostructure.Incontrasttoearlierstudies,itisnowpossibletoderivethepotentiallandshapewithoutanyadjustableparameter.Theresultsstillagreewithearlierinvestigationsusingsimplerphenomenologicalmodels.Sincetheusednextnano3programisavailablesinceacoupleofyears,Iwonderwhythishasnotbeendoneearlier.Theauthorsemphasizeanapplicationoftheirresults.Havingthecompletepotentiallandshapemighthelp,inthefuture,tobetterunderstandthequantizedacoustoelectriccurrentinSETSAWdevicesandtoimprovetheirperformance.However,theauthorsdonotshoworevendiscusshowthiscanbeachieved.ThereforeIbelievethatinthepresentformthepaperisnotsuitableforpublication.Theauthorsshouldconsiderthefollowingsuggestions,questions,andremarks.1)Page1,firstparagraph'...duetothenegativelyappliedgatevoltage...'.ItistheSAWthatdrivestheelectronsthroughthecontact,notthegatevoltage.Maybereplacethissentenceby'...,dependingontheappliedgatevoltage'.2)Page3,paragraphstartingwith'Generally,thequantized...''...withfixedx=1050nmand...'.Skipthe'.0'.Onecouldaddthatthisisexactlyatthecenterofthedevice.3)Attheendofthesameparagraphis'...oncethebiasisbelow...'Shouldthisnotbethegateinsteadofthebiasvoltage?4)Page4,paragraphstartingwith'Asweknow,inthe...''...Tobedifferentfrompreviouscalculations...'replaceby'...Incontrasttopreviouscalculations...'.5)Thestronglydifferentbehaviouraboveandbelowthepinch-offvoltageisnotobviousforthenon-experts.Allcurveslookmoreorlessthesame.Onecould,forexample,addanotherfigure,orinsert,toshowthepotentialheightversusgatevoltage.6)Howdothesetheoreticalresultsofpotentialheightversusgatevoltagecomparewithexperiments?Thereexistsatleastonereporttodeterminethepotentialheightofquantum-pointcontactsbelowpinch-offasfunctionofgatevoltage(Gloosetal.,Phys.Rev.B73,125326(2006)).Possibly,onecouldalsocomparethepresentdatawith3Dsimulationsofquantumdots(Vasileskaetal.,Semicond.Sci.Technol.13,A37(1998)).7)Figure1，Itwouldbebettertomarkthedistancebetweenthetwometalgatesastherelevantparameter,andnotthesizeofonegate.8)Figure3Thenumberingofthetwodensityaxeslooksratherodd.Coulditnotbedonewithintegers,like3insteadof3.2or3.0?9)Figure5(b)ShouldtherenotbeananomalyorkinkinthepotentialneartheFermilevel?在仔细读了审稿人的意见后，我觉得审稿人提出的5）和6)意见非常好，后来自己想想，决定把文章来个彻底的修改。改动文章的英语，审稿人提出了几个英语的语法。这个很容易改。改动文章的结构。换了很多图。因为我们做的是实验和理论计算的结合。首先，我加了实验。把我们实验当中照的有关样品的结构补充到了文章当中，比如分裂栅的结构，叉指的结构等等。把我们理论计算得到的在二维电子气中的势垒高度和我们的实验做了对比，遗憾的是我们的实验当时只做了三条曲线，后面的审稿意见就提出来了，这点后面再说。也就是满足了审稿意见6）。然后把计算的势垒高度画成与分裂栅电压的关系，满足了审稿意见5）加了理论计算声电电流。这个在PLA稿中没有，我们的计算所用到的势场是我们自己计算得到的，而不是用简单的解析表达式的形式。这个修改可是个相当漫长的过程，期间我们经历了人生一辈子都不会忘记的5.12四川汶川大地震。受地震的影响，文章的修改拖了三四个月。改完之后，由于自我感觉良好，所以胆子也大起来了，于是就投到了PhysicalReviewB中的RapidCommunications板块，很快编辑就回信了，客气地说我的文章太长了，然后建议我修改后作为regularpaper投PhysicalReviewB。这里我还是把编辑的信贴出来与大家分享。DearDr.×××,WeacknowledgethereceiptoftheabovemanuscriptsubmittedtotheRapidCommunicationssectionofPhysicalReviewB.Wehaveexaminedyourmanuscriptanditappearstobequitefocusedonapplicationandmaterialscience.Therefore,amoredetailedletterastowhatnewandsignificantphysicsispresentedinyourmanuscriptandwhyPhysicalReviewBisthemostappropriatejournalforyourmanuscriptwouldbeveryhelpful.Pleasenotethatindoingapreliminarycharactercount,wehavefoundthatyourmanuscriptistoolongfortheshortpapersectionsofourjournal.Inviewofthisandtheabove,wefeelthatitwillbemoreproductiveifweconsiderthisasaregulararticlewhenwereceiveapersuasiveresponsetotheaboveconcern.Youmayalsowishtoreviseyourmanuscriptsothatthenewandsignificantphysicsisbetterhighlighted. Inaddition,pleaseexpanditintoaregulararticleformat(e.g.byaddingsectionheadings)andweencourageyoutoaddanymaterialourreadershipmaybenefitfromsincenolengthlimitapplies.Wewillholdyourmanuscriptinourofficeuntilwereceiveyourresponse.Yourssincerely,××××SeniorAssistantEditorPhysicalReviewBEmail:HYPERLINK"mailto:prb@ridge.aps.org"prb@ridge.aps.orgFax:631-591-4141HYPERLINK"http://prb.aps.org/"\t"_blank"http://prb.aps.org/Physics-spotlightingexceptionalresearch:HYPERLINK"http://physics.aps.org/"\t"_blank"http://physics.aps.org/PRLCelebrates50Years:HYPERLINK"http://prl.aps.org/50years/"\t"_blank"http://prl.aps.org/50years/PRBEditors'Suggestions:HYPERLINK"http://prb.aps.org/"\l"suggestions"\t"_blank"http://prb.aps.org/#suggestionsLENGTHCHECKDATA                         (New02/07)ManuscriptNo.BWR1056 FirstAuthorGuoFigure Label  Width Height Picas Percent Cols TotalLines 1   1     37   34   20  0.54   1.0   20 2   2     24   21   15  0.62   1.0   15 3   3     30   21   15  0.50   1.0   11 4   4     24   40   15  0.62   1.0   27 5   5     25   20   15  0.60   1.0   13 6   6     25   19   15  0.60   1.0   12 7   7     24   18   15  0.62   1.0   12LINECOUNTS      Textlines 381(Includestitle,abstract,byline,pacs               receiptdate,text,acknowledgment,               captions,and,references.)       Equations  30        Tables  0        Figures 110         TOTAL 521(Maximumlengthis480)Authortosupply:___Abstractofnomorethan600charactersincludingspaces.___OriginalFigure(s)____________________with  ___finerand/orlargerletteringtopreventitsfillinginwhen    figureisreduced. Minimumletteringsizefortheenclosed    figuresis__________.COMMENTS:Manuscript:NoneTablesandcaptions:NoneFigures:None======================================================================FORMS:======================================================================Pleaseseethefollowingforms: HYPERLINK"http://forms.aps.org/author/lengthguide-pr.pdf"\t"_blank"http://forms.aps.org/author/lengthguide-pr.pdf  LengthGuidelinesfor:PhysicalReview当时觉得编辑这么说了，感觉还是挺有希望的，于是快马加鞭修改，之后就投出去了。下面是论文的处理过程09Dec08Editorialdecisionand/orrefereecommentssenttoauthor13Oct0808Dec08Reviewrequesttoreferee;editorconcludesresponseunlikely13Oct0808Dec08Reviewrequesttoreferee;reportreceived04Nov08Remindertoreferee[otherssent(notshown)at1-2weekintervals]04Nov08Remindertoreferee[otherssent(notshown)at1-2weekintervals]13Oct0818Oct08Reviewrequesttoreferee;reportreceived07Oct0808Oct08Correspondencesenttoauthor;responsereceived06Oct08Correspondence(miscellaneous)senttoauthor10Sep0806Oct08Correspondencesenttoauthor;responsereceived24Sep0825Sep08Correspondence(miscellaneous)senttoauthor;responsercvd10Sep08Acknowledgmentsenttoauthor08Sep08Correspondence(miscellaneous)senttoauthor大概历时三个月收到审稿意见。判决结果－拒！有一次败了！当时心情十分沮丧。审稿意见如下：DearDr.×××,Theabovemanuscripthasbeenreviewedbytwoofourreferees.Commentsfromthereportsareenclosed.WeregretthatinviewofthesecommentswecannotacceptthepaperforpublicationinthePhysicalReview.Yourssincerely,××××AssistantEditorPhysicalReviewBEmail:HYPERLINK"mailto:prb@ridge.aps.org"prb@ridge.aps.orgFax:631-591-4141HYPERLINK"http://prb.aps.org/"\t"_blank"http://prb.aps.org/Physics-spotlightingexceptionalresearch:HYPERLINK"http://physics.aps.org/"\t"_blank"http://physics.aps.org/PRLCelebrates50Years:HYPERLINK"http://prl.aps.org/50years/"\t"_blank"http://prl.aps.org/50years/PRBEditors'Suggestions:HYPERLINK"http://prb.aps.org/"\l"suggestions"\t"_blank"http://prb.aps.org/#suggestions----------------------------------------------------------------------ReportoftheFirstReferee×××/×××----------------------------------------------------------------------ThepaperaimsatthenumericalsolutionofthesetofSchroedingerandPoissonequationsforasplit-gatestructureandsubsequentapplicationoftheresultstocalculationofquantizedacoustoelectriccurrent.Thepaperissoundandwellwritten.However,inmyview,itdoesnotcontainenoughnewphysicstowarrantitspublicationinthePhysicalReview.SincetheworkseemstobeusefultopeopleinvolvedinoptimizingstandardsofelectricalcurrentIrecommendtoresubmitthepapertoajournalmorespecializedonapplications,suchastheJournalofAppliedPhysics.----------------------------------------------------------------------ReportoftheSecondReferee--×××/×××----------------------------------------------------------------------Thesubjectofthepaperisaninterestingone,althoughthefocusofthecommunityhasshiftedawayfromitinthemeantime.Neverthelessthepaperwouldbeworthpublishingifitgavebetterevidenceintheinterestingelectrontransportmechanismprevailinginthiseffect.SpecificallytheauthorspresentnumericalresultsforthepotentialinaSAWdrivensplit-gateinducedsmallchannel.Theyclaimintheabstractthat"thepotentialbarrierheightscalculatedintheclosed-channel-regimeagreewellwiththeexperimentweperformed."Tomyunderstandingthey(implicitly)claimthattheirnumericalmethodprovidesbetterunderstandingoftheSETSAWeffectandthatitshouldallowforabetterdesignofsuchdevices.However,theydonotgiveanyexperimentalresulttosupporttheirclaim.Thequantitativeresultsofthenumericalcalculationscouldprovetheirsuperioritybycomparisonwithexperimentalresultobtainedfromcorrespondinglytailoreddevices,buttheauthorsonlyrepeatgeneralstatementslike"...agreesverywellwithexperiment.",withoutpresentingexperiments.Withoutspecificcomparisonsthereader(ifheknowstheliteraturewell)justlearnsthatthereisakindofqualitativeagreement.Butsuchqualitative,andevensemi-quantitative,agreementhasbeenobtainedbeforewithsimplerphenomenological'ansatz'likepotentialdistributions.Thepresentpaperreachessimilarconclusionsaspreviousworkbutneverdemonstrateswherethenumericalcalculationsaremorepreciseorprovidebetterunderstandingofthephysics.ThestyleofthepaperisnotappropriateandshouldberevisedbyanativeEnglishspeaker.Irecommendtorejectthepaper.不过沮丧归沮丧，生活还得继续，继续改投吧，好在第一个审稿人给我指明了一条生路，那就是改投JournalofAppliedPhysics，于是，本人按照审稿人的意见又改了一些。由于一月份父亲的身体出了点问 题 快递公司问题件快递公司问题件货款处理关于圆的周长面积重点题型关于解方程组的题及答案关于南海问题 ，提前回老家了，家离四川有点远，所以修改又拖了一段时间，最终三月份投到了JournalofAppliedPhysics。这次运气还真不错，编辑部处理稿件的速度还真快，审稿也快，呵呵！心里暗暗有点高兴！下面是文章的处理过程：RevisionReceived2009-05-0709:53:41WaitingforRevision2009-04-0813:45:38DecisionSent2009-04-0813:45:38DecisionLetterBeingPrepared2009-03-3016:29:58EditorialEvaluation-Editor2009-03-3011:04:55UnderReview2009-03-1612:31:33SecuringReviewer(s)2009-03-1215:43:32UnderConsideration-EditorialOffice2009-03-1211:35:24Author-ApprovedFilesSubmitted2009-03-0903:59:53UnderConsideration-EditorialOffice2009-03-0903:59:52Author-ApprovedFilesSubmitted2009-03-0903:59:52AwaitingAuthorAdjustment/ApprovalofConvertedFiles2009-03-0903:45:11ManuscriptFilesUploaded2009-03-0903:35:28PreliminaryManuscriptDataPosted2009-03-0902:59:45嘿嘿，一个月还不到就收到初审意见，这对JAP来说速度是算快的了，我们实验室还有一篇文章投出去都快100天了，现在还在找审稿人，真够让人郁闷的。一如既往，把审稿意见贴出来吧。ReviewerComments:Reviewer#1Evaluations:RECOMMENDATION:MajorRevisionSufficientNewPhysicsinanAppliedArea:YesAppropriateLength:YesWellOrganizedandClearlyWritten:NoGoodTitle:YesGoodAbstract:YesClearFigures:YesAdequateReferences:YesTECHNICALQUALITYRATING:MarginalPRESENTATIONRATING:MarginalReviewer#1(CommentstotheAuthor):Irecommendmajorrevision,becausethereareafewthingswhichneedtobeimproved:-thetheoreticalpartdescribesinverydetailanimproveddescriptionofthesplit-gateinducedpotential.Theauthorsclaimthatthesecalculationsaremoreprecisethanearliercalculations.Tojustifythisclaimtheycomparetheirdatawithexperimentalvalues,seeFig.5b).Buttheexperimentalvaluesusedareverylimitedandonlyforlargepinchedoffchannels.Thisclaimisnotjustifiedbyusingonlythesedata!-Thequantizedcurrentiscalculatedforasplit-gatedevice.Thenattheveryend,experimentaldataofanetcheddeviceispresented:thisdoesnotfittogether.Thepotentiallandscapeinanetcheddeviceisdifferentfromasplitgatedevice.Whydotheauthorsnotcalculatesuchadevice?Then,experimentalandtheoreticaldatawouldfittogether.-Soeithertheclaimthattheirmethodofcalculationisbetterneedstobemoresolid,ortheexperimentalandtheoreticaldataneedstofittogether.-finally,thelanguageneedssomeimprovement(alotofprepositionsaremissing)审稿人的意见很中肯，于是，我按照审稿人的意思，把文章又仔仔细细地改了一遍，补充了实验数据。删掉了最后一个与我们计算的器件不是对应的实验图，增加了一篇参考文献。其中还改了里面的英语表达。修改完成后，给审稿人的修改 说明 关于失联党员情况说明岗位说明总经理岗位说明书会计岗位说明书行政主管岗位说明书 竟然有四页，呵呵。修改完成，马上投过去，这次更快，速度快得惊人，当时还把我吓出了冷汗。不信就看看吧ManuscriptSenttoProduction2009-05-1113:03:17DecisionSent2009-05-1113:03:17DecisionLetterBeingPrepared2009-05-0814:35:22EditorialEvaluation-Editor2009-05-0813:31:50UnderReview2009-05-0713:47:23SecuringReviewer(s)2009-05-0711:15:56UnderConsideration-EditorialOffice2009-05-0711:15:55Author-ApprovedFilesSubmitted2009-05-0710:14:15UnderConsideration-EditorialOffice2009-05-0710:14:15Author-ApprovedFilesSubmitted2009-05-0710:14:14AwaitingAuthorAdjustment/ApprovalofConvertedFiles2009-05-0709:57:41ManuscriptFilesUploaded2009-05-0709:53:40PreliminaryManuscriptDataPosted2009-05-0709:29:22从投出去到审稿结束仅仅一天！五月十二号收到编辑的信Dear×××:Iampleasedtoinformyouthatyourmanuscript,referencedbelow,hasbeenacceptedforpublicationintheJournalofAppliedPhysics.MaterialsarebeingpreparedforAIPProductionServices.×××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××ReviewerComments:Reviewer#1Evaluations:RECOMMENDATION:PublishasisSufficientNewPhysicsinanAppliedArea:YesAppropriateLength:YesWellOrganizedandClearlyWritten:YesGoodTitle:YesGoodAbstract:YesClearFigures:YesAdequateReferences:YesTECHNICALQUALITYRATING:GoodPRESENTATIONRATING:GoodReviewer#1(CommentstotheAuthor):Theauthorshavesignificantlyimprovedthemanuscriptandthereforeasubmissionisnowjustified.从意见看，审稿人对我的修改非常满意！呵呵！经历了坎坎坷坷，终于接收。在这里我还真得感谢小木虫，感谢虫子们对我的帮助和鼓励，在这里我学到了很多有关投稿写作的 经验 班主任工作经验交流宣传工作经验交流材料优秀班主任经验交流小学课改经验典型材料房地产总经理管理经验 。越挫越勇，不言放弃，就是成功！谢谢大家！