仪器信息网APP
选仪器、听讲座、看资讯

SCI论文写作概述(感到有点虚的转载)

  • zhang8826857
    2011/09/11
  • 私聊

论文写作和投稿



  • sci文章写作,经验(转载)



    这个暑假中了2篇SCI文章,影响因子都在IF=1.5-2.0之间。其实,在此之前,本人已经发表了若干SCI,而且已经是两个期刊的Reviewer。但尽管如此,随着文章积累越多,对SCI写作的认识也有所熟悉和深入。下面谈谈一些体会,与大家分享。

    第一篇:去年12月份投稿,7月份返回意见。结论是:“I am pleased to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication provided that you amend it according to the concerns raised in the review report given below.”实际上,这个结论已经非常好了。我看了以下审稿意见,然后就逐条的进行了Response。其中Response letter的格式我是参考了我审稿过的一篇德国学者的回复模式(我认为非常好)。但是,在审稿意见中,有一条意见要我对实验过程做一描述。我认为完全没有必要,所以没有改此项。很快,R1版文件被主编审回。我认为应该“Complete Accept”了,但意见还是“I am pleased to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication provided that you amend it according to the concerns raised in the review report given below.”不出所料,主编的意见就是R1中没有改的那条,而且比较客气,认为“Probably the authors did not notice this requirement. However, this issue is critical: to judge the value of the reported methodological development;”没有办法,我又认真对意见进行了修改。R2版文件我认为没有问题了,就等Accept了。

    可是R2返回后,主编的意见还是意见还是“I am pleased to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication provided that you amend it according to the concerns raised in the review report given below.”这次一看,原来意见是“The paper requires careful editing for use of English.”我想应该不会啊。我又仔细审查了Text,结果还是发现了几个不应该的拼写错误。我的Word的拼写可能出问题了,前几次竟然没有发现。这次,我不敢大意了,俗话云:事不过三。如果再有问题,主编的大斧可能就来了。于是,我认真的检查了全文,写了Resonse letter:

    Dear the Editors and reviewers:

    We appreciate again your valuable comments very much, which are helpful to improve the quality of our present study. According to the comments, we have revised our paper as follows:

    1)Comments: "…….. ."

    According to the reviewer’s suggestions, we have checked again our spelling and rewriten or modified a number of expression_r_rs in the abstract, text, figures, and tables. Thanks ***, a reviewer of International Journal of ****, for his kind help on the text modifications(这是我表示诚意,特意加上去的).

    Especially, in the Acknowledgement, we added our thanks for anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions on the quality improvement of our present paper.

    果然,R3版文件当天就被主编接受了。意见:“It gives me great pleasure to inform you that the reviewers have accepted your paper for publication.The proofs will be sent to you within three months of receipt of this email.”

    通过上面的来回反复,我发现SCI回复意见一定要态度认真,逐条回复。对于中国作者,及时主编不说,也要对English进行认真核对,认真决定一切!

    这次,我真的学了很多经验教训。就在我改动之间,我又准备了另外一篇,而且把这篇Accept的文章也引用上了。

    第二篇:这次准备的非常充分,尤其是语法方面画了大量功夫,内容也比较新。就是把实验数据反过来了。不是直接报数据,而是先给了模型,而后用实验去验证。我感到满意的是Introduction。这里,我充分参考了木虫上Fudanmazhen的经验,尽量在“讲故事,而不是讲历史”。结果,7月29日投出,8月5日主编返回意见:直接接受,而且说无需任何进一步改动。目前,此篇文章已经上网了。与此同时,主编还发给我一篇西班牙作者的文章,让我当Reviewer。我肯定欣然接受了。因此,我本来就是这个期刊的审稿人。当然,这是我SCI运气最好的一次,估计也是最后一次了,因为直接接受的情形确实很少,我也不奢望每篇文章都这样,除非自己当主编。但是,通过这个假期的SCI较量,我对SCI文章的写作又有了新的认识。

    希望以上的经历对各位有用,当好SCI作者,当好SCI审稿人,提升自己的行业学术影响!!!
猜你喜欢最新推荐热门推荐更多推荐
举报帖子

执行举报

点赞用户
好友列表
加载中...
正在为您切换请稍后...