外文投稿经历
在外文期刊投稿的收获
从以上审稿人的意见和编辑的编排顺序可以看出，第一审稿人是对该领域最熟悉的，所以编辑也是最看重他/她的意见。后来转投的杂志的审稿人仍然是他/她，不过只有他一个人审稿了，被Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.拒了，再由编辑推荐到另一杂志直接接受的。但有个地方我觉得很有意思。在投出去的第一稿时，文章是按照中国人作文的模式写的，即“起承转合”，我们把最基础但最不重要(相对而言)的定性的实验数据放在了最前面，而把最主要最能说明问题的定量的数据放在了最后。但在得出结论的时候，我们发现最后的数据虽然很好也很能说明文章的主旨思想，但是有一个小数据和前面的实验结果不太一致。这就导致了第一稿文章一个致命的硬伤，即实验数据不能充分论证实验结论，而且存在相冲突的地方。于是，我们补充了一些实验数据然后把文章结构重新编排了一下，把最有说服力的定量的数据放在了最前面，而把定性的结果放在了后面，作为对定量数据的一个支持，整个文章的顺序倒了过来。并清楚说明，关于定性的实验数据的部分量化的指标并不能作为比较的标准，就算有个1-2倍差别也不能否定准确定量的结果(有10-20倍的差别)。最后文章也被接受了。
也指出了文章一些细节上的错误。
这个审稿人的态度是最温和的，基本没有提太尖锐的问题，而且推荐接受程度 (Recommend Acceptance) 给的是“B”，比前两位的“C”要好。
从三位审稿人的态度可以看出，导师的基本判断是对的，只是文章写的还不够完善，有硬伤即创新性(novelty)，也有太多软伤(The quality of writing)，或许多到了没“咔嚓”的地步。于是，根据编辑的推荐，我们直接转投了他们旗下的另一个杂志，很快就接受了。
Recommend Acceptance: C) Yes, but only with major alterations ”
国外杂志投稿经验
国外杂志投稿经验（1）我发第一篇E文的经验1有新意。
2文章内容逻辑和条理性好，实验结果自成系统。
3如果没有直接拒稿，就有希望，要根据REVIEWER和EDITOR的意见一条一条的修改。
4我觉得非常重要，找到合适的杂志。
有些杂志觉得你的东西毫无新意，而有些杂志却觉得你的文章很有趣。
就像不同的女孩子对你的感觉那样。
最好找那些边缘杂志，明白吗？当然，如果你的东西确实好，那就直接找公认的、那些牛杂志投吧。
这是我写的一篇文章，投给‘“Journal of Radiation Research”的文章，下面是该杂志给我的回复。
向国际刊物投稿，不仅课题提高自己的英文写作，也可以听听老外审稿人的意见，以提高自己的论文水平和科研思路（我没有贬国内审稿人的意思）。
EDITORIAL COMMENTS（对第一次修改稿的意见）We have reviewed your revised version of the manuscript (MS#*** , but we still think that the present manuscript has not yet reached to the satisfied level for the publication in JRR. The followings are some points for your further revision.1) Please, reconsider about your descriptive sentences in the text. ex. The word, "normal", should not be used for the NPC cells, because NPC cells are intrinsically tumor cells. The authors should be more careful about such sort of description in the text.2) As it is seen in your response to the reviewers' comments , we don't understand that why you didn't discuss about the features of growth and physiological conditions of unmodified *** cells as normal more clearly and definitely in the text by referring other appropriate reports and papers.3) The next revision should be more careful by keeping the attention to those comments raised by Ref. 3 for your first manuscript. Particularly, more adequate explanation the figure legends and procedures of the experiments, etc.We look for further revision. Thank you for your co-operation.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -REFEREE #1Comments for JRR***-revised versionThe revised form has made a significant improvement, specifically in English and data presentation (figures). However, there are a few points still need to be considered before acceptance.1. The title is recommended to change to"Combination of Suicide gene therapy and radiation enhances killing of ***".2. Materials and Methods: (p.3, line 5 and line 6)The (--start code) should be (--start codon).3. Fig. 2:It is not clear why the authors only show western blot analysis of suicide gene,but not the other fusion proteins, especially the fusion protein of gene,which is criitical for experiments shown in Fig. 6.4. Fig. 6:The in vivo tumor regression study was carried out by using NPC cell clones containing individual expressing constructs. The ones showed the most significant effect are animals injected with NPC cells expressing suicide gene, and treated with both radiation and 5-FC. No data have been present for the effect of the HSV-tk and GCV treatment. Therefore, Western blot analysis of the particular cell clone demonstrates the expression the fusion protein should be added for clarification.5. Discussion, p.12, the third paragraph:The authors say that " ----lowing the dose of radiation and transferring expressed suicide genes to the tumor locations." No data in this paper indicate that the radiation dosage experiments have been performed. Besides, it is "lowering" not "lowing". I will suggest authors add a sentence or two to discuss this issue.6. Description written under Figure3 and Figure 4a requires either removal or rewriting.7. Abstract:Lines 1-3 can be separated into two sentences.Line 8: " analyzed by MTT assay" to replace " analysis by MTT'.紫熊（2）这是我第一次向国际刊物投稿。
泪流满面：我的Nature三年投稿经历分享
泪流满面：我的Nature三年投稿经历分享2014年5月1日晚上九点半，从深圳回来，在地铁上翻看手机（已经养成了随时接收邮件的习惯），突然邮件蹦出来，****************，顿时一阵激动，知道发生了什么，邮件标题是：Final decision for XXXXX。
惊喜，终于收到了期盼已久的Decision---Accepted，万分激动！回想整整三年的研究，5个月的投稿过程，不由感叹良久。
以下是和大家分享的经验教训。
文章所研究的现象是2012年年初发现的，但局限于硕士时的研究背景，对这个研究方向一直不明朗，和导师隔三差五的讨论，然后做实验，但进展缓慢。
一开始并没有想做成什么样子，只觉得这个现象别人还没有报道过，可以做出一些scientific上的东西。
也由于自己学校实验设备有限，去其他课题组借设备实验，这期间花费了很多时间（实验设别齐全对做实验尤为重要）。
老板对写文章的要求是要立足高一些，他感觉要不然就是有些浪费时间。
这可以从我师姐毕业时候的发表看得出来（PRL，AFM和Scientific report一作各一篇，还有其他第二第三作的）。
实验过程中，为了分析现象，老板开始找合作者A，去推导理论模型来解释现象，这个工作从2012年年底开始。
（如果没有相关的知识背景，那就只能而且最好早点去找合作者）但由于实验复杂，模型中很多地方都只能做出假设，以配合实验的结果。
2013年4月份，初稿（a）成型，之后反复修改了有10个来回。
转折点出现在2013年5月，在进行下一个实验项目的时候，突然发现这个实验与上一个实验存在某些关联，且现在的实验可以进一步直接验证上个实验。
因此初稿a修改暂时停顿下来，借鉴实验二进一步完善实验一。
（多做实验，对发现现象很重要）（注：此时，老板已经根据实验需要，自己置办了一套实验设备。
事实也证明，这套实验设备为实验的快速进展奠定了基础。
）老板根据实验进展，又找到了合作者B，进一步进行仿真分析和理论模型的验证，这个过程相对较快，而且仿真结果对实验又有进一步的指导作用。
分享我的SCI外文文章写作和投稿经历
案例:
Comment 6: Major revision is required - and unusually, I want you to repeat the work with a current sample of sludge - following the same protocols to see if the results are the same. If they are, you then are in a position to claim your results and conclusions are reproducible, but without that - there can be no publication in this journal.
10
除此之外，还要提出自己文章研究的新颖性和必要性。 案例:
研究意义不明确
Comment 2: The meaning of this work is not explicit. Your colleagues have done some similar work before. You should emphasize your novelty and necessity. Answer: 需强调与其同事研究相比的新颖性和必要性 As mentioned in the manuscript, my colleagues have done some similar works which focused on the influence of back mixing on convective drying of residual sludges in a pilot-scale fixed bed by using the high-energy tomograph. However, they only detected the structural characteristics before and after drying, but they have no information concerning the structure evolutions of the sludge bed. We also revised the last two paragraphs of the introduction, which emphasize the novelty and necessity of this work.
我的第一次SCI投稿经历（5篇范例）
我的第一次SCI投稿经历（5篇范例）第一篇：我的第一次SCI投稿经历第一次SCI投稿经历总结时间已经过去了一年多，现在回首当年其SCI投稿经历，可谓是一波三折(亚洲的应该是投到亚洲这边的，但是投到了美洲那边，绕了个大圈，所以发文后很久没有消息，中间花了很长时间询问文章的下落)，花费了一年半的时间，终于能得以在Ultrasonics Sonochemistry上发表。
在这里，感谢各位前辈的指导。
是和你们无私奉献，把自己的投稿经历写出来，给后来人以参考，小弟终于能得以修成正果。
现在，为继前辈之精神，小弟也把自己经历写出来，以供后来人参考。
在科研的道路上，咱互勉！这是第一次投稿，参考各位前辈的格式，通过爱思唯尔（Elsevier）网站，发给Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 编辑部的介绍信。
（所涉及内容咱删去，保存其骨架，见谅！）Cover Letter Dear Editor, We are submitting a manuscript ent itled “XXX” by XXX et al.for your kind consideration for publication in Ultrasonics Sonochemistry.In this manuscript, a set of XXX were used to investigate the effect of XXX such as XXX.We believe the paper may be of particular interest to the readers of your journal.We would be grateful if the manuscript could be reviewed and considered for publication in this journal.Phone calls about the paper should be directed to XXX at the following address，phone and fax number，and e-mail address:(略)Thank you very much for your attention to our paper． Sincerely yours，XXX 2010年8月31日编辑的来信:Dear Mr.XXX, The reviewers have commented on your above paper.They indicated that it is not acceptable for publication in its present form.However, if you feel that you can suitably address the reviewers' comments(included below), I invite you to reviseand resubmit your manuscript.Please carefully address the issues raised in the comments.I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.Yours sincerely, XXX.Editor Ultrasonics SonochemistryReviewers' comments: Comments from Reviewer No.1 Recommendation: Major Revision There are numerous English and grammatical errors in this manuscript that must be corrected before this work can be considered for publication.Some suggestions are given below.There are also additional comments for consideration in brackets after some of the suggestions that the authors should consider carefully.2010年11月17日给编辑的去信 Dear XXX, We are pleased to answer the questions(or make the amendment)of the reviewers’ and the manuscript(XXX)has also been extensively revised according to the comments and was resubmitted online.kind regards Sincerely yours, XXX 2010年11月17日Detailed Response to Reviewers Dear editors and reviewers，Thank you your comments.According to your advice, we have revised the paper as follows: 1.English and grammatical errors had been corrected point to point as your comments in the revised manuscript;the revisions are as follows: XXX.” Revised.语法错误修改内容略 2.Other comments:(1)The author should include the citations in their article.Although the studies were performed at XXX from the current study, they nonetheless set the precedent for this kind of work.Thank you for your advice.We have consulted the dissertation ……….以下针对编辑的回答略。
最完全的投稿经历
最完全的投稿经历（从投稿到接受），希望对您有用(转载)一直感激在小木虫获得的帮助和资源。
也思忖着为小木虫做点什么。
值第三篇SCI论文将要出版之际，特将其中一篇从投稿到接受的所有细节列出与各位分享。
投的杂志是Polymer （SCI Journal, 2006 IF=2.77），但我觉得所有的杂志都是大同小异。
希望对投稿的虫子有一定的参考价值。
2007/3/4 Submit the manuscript through the online EES (/jpol/)//Cover letter//Dear Editor,Here enclosed is a completely new manuscript entitled "xxxxx", which we wish to be considered. None of the material in the paper has been published or is under consideration for publication elsewhere.In this manusc ript, …………. We believe that this new paper may be also of particular interest to the readers of your journal.Correspondence about the paper should be directed to xx at the following address, phone and fax number, and e-mail address:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXThanks very much for your attention to our paper.Sincerely yours,The authors******************************************2007/3/4 received a letter ?from jpol@//Submission Confirmation for Polymer//PolymerTitle:Authors:Article Type: Regular ArticleDear, Your submission entitled "xxxxx" has been received by Polymer. You may check on the progress of your paper by logging on to the Elsevier Editorial System as an author. The URL is /jpol/.Your username is:Your password is:Your manuscript will be given a reference number once an Editor has been assigned. Thank you for submitting your work to this journal. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries.Kind regards,Polymer******************************************For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier Author Support at authorsupport@ 2007/3/5 received a letter ?from jpol@//A manuscript number has been assigned to xxxxx//PolymerRef:Title:Authors:Article Type: Regular ArticleDear,Your submission entitled "xxxxx" has been assigned the following manuscript number: xx. You may check on the progress of your paper by logging on to the Elsevier Editorial System as an author. The URL is/jpol/.Your username is:Your password is:Thank you for submitting your work to this journal. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries. Kind regards,Caroline JohnsonJournal ManagerPolymer******************************************For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier Author Support at authorsupport@ 2007/3/5 received a letter ?from jpol@//Editor handles xx//PolymerRef:Title:Authors:Article Type: Regular ArticleDear,Your submission entitled "xxxxx" will be handled by All Papers from China: All Subject Areas Charles Han. You may check on the progress of your paper by logging on to the Elsevier Editorial System as an author. The URL is/jpol/.Your username is:Your password is:Thank you for submitting your work to this journal. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries. Kind regards,Charles HanAll Papers from China: All Subject AreasPolymer******************************************For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier Author Support at authorsupport@ 2007/4/19 received a letter from [email]c.c.han@[/email]//Your Submission to Polymer: xx//Ref.: Ms. No.PolymerDear,Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript substantially. If you send back your revised manuscript along with replies to reviewers, we will re-consider your paper. For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below. When you revise your manuscript, please attach a "Response to Reviewers" which sets out in detail how you have responded to the referees' comments.I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. In an attempt to speed up publication times, revised manuscripts must be returned with 3 months. Otherwise, they will be treated as new submissions.When submitting your revised manuscript, please ensure that you upload the source files (e.g. Word). Uploading only a PDF file at this stage will create delays should your manuscript be finally accepted for publication. If your revised submission does not include the source files, we will contact you to request them.To submit a revision, please go to /jpol/Your username is:Your password is:Choose "Author Login" and the menu "Submissions Needing Revision".Yours sincerelyCharles HanAll Papers from China: All Subject AreasPolymerReviewers' comments:Reviewer #1:Reviewer #2:2007/5/17 submit a revised manuscript through the online EES (/jpol/)//Responds to the reviews//Dear editor,Thank you very much for your attention. The other two reviewers are also acknowledged from the bottom of our hearts for the careful reviews on our manuscript (xx). The affirmation on our work has greatly encouraged us. According to those helpful comments, we make a careful revision on the original manuscript. All revisions are explained as follows: Major comments from referee 1 were abstracted as a following list:1.2.…………………….Answer to referee 1 comments:1.2.……………………….Major comments from referee 2 were abstracted as a following list:1.2.…………………….Answer to referee 2 comments:1.2.……………………….Besides the revision described above, all the references you (the editor) kindly recommended are included in our revised manuscript which are labeled as xxx. These references actually provide good reference …...Sincerely yours,The author2007/5/17 received a letter from jpol@//Your PDF has been built and requires approval?//PolymerDear,The PDF for your submission, "xxxxx", is ready for viewing. Please login to the Elsevier Editorial System as an Author to view and approve the PDF of your submission. url: /jpol/Your username is:Your password is:Your submission must be approved in order to complete the submission process and send the manuscript to the Polymer editorial office. Please view the submission before approving it, to be certain that it is free of any errors. You will also need to confirm that you have read and agree with the Elsevier Ethics in Publishing statement before you can submit your article.Thank you for your time and patience.Kind regards,Editorial OfficePolymer******************************************For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier Author Support at authorsupport@ 2007/5/17 received a letter from [email]c.c.han@[/email]//Submission Confirmation for xx//PolymerRef:Title:Authors:Article Type: Regular ArticleDear,Your revised manuscript has been received for reconsideration for publication in Polymer. You may check the status of your manuscript by logging onto the Elsevier Editorial System as an Author at /jpol/.Your username is:Your password is:Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries.Kind regards,Polymer******************************************For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier Author Support at authorsupport@ 2007/5/17 received a letter from [email]c.c.han@[/email]//Editor handles xxx//PolymerRef:Title:Authors:Article Type: Regular ArticleDear,Your submission entitled "xxxxx" will be handled by All Papers from China: All Subject Areas Charles Han. You maycheck on the progress of your paper by logging on to the Elsevier Editorial System as an author. The URL is/jpol/.Your username is:Your password is:Thank you for submitting your work to this journal. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries. Kind regards,Charles HanAll Papers from China: All Subject AreasPolymer******************************************For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier Author Support at authorsupport@ 2007/6/15 received a letter from [email]c.c.han@[/email]//Your Submission to Polymer: xx//Ref.:PolymerDear,Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising some minor changes to your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I expect that the paper will be accepted. For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below. When you revise your manuscript, please attach a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point which is being raised when you submit the revised manuscript. When submitting your revised manuscript, please ensure that you upload the source files (e.g. Word). Uploading only a PDF file at this stage will create delays should your manuscript be finally accepted for publication. If your revised submission does not include the source files, we will contact you to request them. To submit a revision, go to /jpol/ and log in as an Author.Your username is:Your password is:You will see a menu item call Submission Needing Revision. You will find your submission record there.Yours sincerelyCharles HanAll Papers from China: All Subject AreasPolymerReviewers' comments: Reviewer #2:2007/6/30 submit the revised manuscript through the online EES (/jpol/)//Respond to the reviewers?//Dear editor,Thank you for the continuous attention to our manuscript (POLYMER-07-486R1). We also greatly appreciate the reviewer #2 for the careful review and valuable comments.………………….We wish we had corrected all errors. Thank you and the reviewer again for all efforts spent on our manuscript. Sincerely yours,The authors2007/6/30 received a letter from jpol@//Your PDF has been built and requires approval?//PolymerDear,The PDF for your submission, "xxxxx", is ready for viewing.Please login to the Elsevier Editorial System as an Author to view and approve the PDF of your submission .url: /jpol/Your username is:Your password is:Your submission must be approved in order to complete the submission process and send the manuscript to the Polymer editorial office. Please view the submission before approving it, to be certain that it is free of any errors. You will also need to confirm that you have read and agree with the Elsevier Ethics in Publishing statement before you can submit your article.Thank you for your time and patience.Kind regards,Editorial OfficePolymer******************************************For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier Author Support at authorsupport@ 2007/6/30 received a letter from [email]c.c.han@[/email]//Submission Confirmation for xx //PolymerRef: xxR2Title: xxxxxAuthors:Article Type: Regular ArticleDear,Your revised manuscript has been received for reconsideration for publication in Polymer.You may check the status of your manuscript by logging onto the Elsevier Editorial System as an Author at/jpol/.Your username is:Your password is:Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries.Kind regards,Polymer******************************************For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier Author Support at authorsupport@ 2007/7/2 received a letter from [email]c.c.han@[/email]//Editor handles xxR2?//PolymerRef: xxR2Title: xxxxxAuthors:Article Type: Regular ArticleDear,Your submission entitled "xxxxx" will be handled by All Papers from China: All Subject Areas Charles Han.You may check on the progress of your paper by logging on to the Elsevier Editorial System as an author. The URL is /jpol/.Your username is:Your password is:Thank you for submitting your work to this journal. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries. Kind regards,Charles HanAll Papers from China: All Subject AreasPolymer******************************************For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier Author Support at authorsupport@ 2007/7/6 received a letter from [email]c.c.han@[/email]//Your Submission *R2?//Ref.: Ms. No. *R2xxxxxPolymerDear,I am pleased to tell you that your work has now been accepted for publication in Polymer.Comments from the Editor and Reviewers can be found below.Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.With kind regardsCharles HanAll Papers from China: All Subject AreasPolymerEditor/Reviewers' comments:。
外文期刊发表经验
外文期刊发表经验在学术界，发表外文期刊论文是每个研究人员都渴望的成就之一。
然而，要让自己的研究成果在国际期刊上发表，并不是一件容易的事情。
在我自己的学术道路上，我也曾经历过种种困难和挑战，但通过总结经验，我想和大家分享一些我自己的外文期刊发表经验，希望能对大家有所帮助。
首先，要选择合适的期刊是至关重要的。
在投稿之前，我们需要对不同期刊的定位、影响因子、审稿周期等信息有一个清晰的了解。
只有选择了合适的期刊，我们的研究成果才有可能被认可并发表。
因此，在选择期刊时，我们需要认真筛选，不要盲目地追求高影响因子的期刊，而是要根据自己的研究方向和研究成果的特点来选择合适的期刊。
其次，撰写高质量的外文论文也是至关重要的。
在写作过程中，我们需要注意论文的结构和逻辑，确保每一个部分都清晰明了，语言流畅。
同时，我们也需要注重文献的引用和数据的分析，确保我们的研究成果有说服力。
此外，我们还需要注意语言的准确性和规范性，确保论文没有语法错误和拼写错误。
只有写出高质量的论文，我们的研究成果才有可能被外文期刊接受。
另外，与同行学者的交流和合作也是非常重要的。
在学术研究中，我们需要和同行学者进行交流和合作，互相借鉴、互相学习，这样才能够不断提升自己的研究水平。
同时，与同行学者的合作也有助于扩大我们的学术影响力，增加我们的研究成果被外文期刊接受的可能性。
最后，要耐心和坚持。
在发表外文期刊论文的过程中，我们可能会遇到种种困难和挫折，但我们需要保持耐心和坚持，不断完善自己的研究成果，不断提高自己的写作水平。
只有坚持不懈，我们才有可能最终在外文期刊上发表论文。
总之，发表外文期刊论文是一项需要耐心和技巧的工作。
我们需要选择合适的期刊，撰写高质量的论文，与同行学者进行交流合作，同时保持耐心和坚持。
相信只要我们不断努力，最终我们的研究成果一定会在国际期刊上发表，为学术界做出自己的贡献。
希望我的经验分享能够对大家有所帮助，也希望大家都能够在学术道路上取得成功。
分享两篇SCI发表的经历coverletter、responseletter
分享两篇SCI发表的经历三年前对于我来说SCI就是天书一样，在我踏进博士的门槛后我以为自己进入了地狱，也纠结也彷徨，整天刷虫友们对于博士、SCI的帖子，我选择了虫友们鼓励的那一部分来激励自己继续前行。
我告诉自己坚持就是胜利，当然那是积极的坚持。
在好几月之前就有这个想法，今天早上收到第二篇的接收通知后，我便想今天一定要在小木虫上那些给予我帮助的虫友们。
话不多说，我把自己这两篇投稿的经历与大家共享，希望能给大家带来一点点用处。
第一篇发表在FitoterapiaCover letterDear Editor Verotta:We would like to submit the manuscript entitled "××××××题目" by ××××××所有作者which we wish to be considered for publication in Journal of Fitoterapia.All authors have read and approved this version of the article, and due care has been taken to ensure the integrity of the work. Neither the entire paper nor any part of its content has been published or has been accepted elsewhere. It is not being submitted to any other journal.We believe the paper may be of particular interest to the readers of your journal as it is the first time of ××××××研究的精华所在Thank you very much for your reconsidering our revised manuscript for potential publication in Fitoterapia. We are looking forward to hearing from you soon. Correspondence should be addressed to Jinhui Yu at the following address, phone and fax number, and email address.地址、学院、学校名称Phone: + 86××××××Fax number: + 86571××××××Email address:者Response to reviewersDear Editor:Thank you very much for your letter and the mentsfrom the referees about our paper submitted to Journal of Fitoterapia (FITOTE-D-11-01071). The manuscript entitled "××××××" by ××××××所有作者have been revised according to the reviewers’ ments, and we wish it to be reconsidered for publication in Journal of Fitoterapia.A list of changes and responses to reviewers are as follows.List of ActionsLOA1: The key words were changed in page?.LOA2: The name and location of the local biochemistry pany have been added in section 2.1 (page 3).LOA3: A paragraph has been added in section 3.1 (page 5) to further explain the determination of the cis and trans configuration of double bonds in polyprenols.LOA4: The language was improved by English language editing of Elsevier webshop.To Reviewer 1#,Thank you very much for pointing out the problems in our manuscript. We have revised it according to your remendations. We would like to know if there are still somewhere need to be amended.(1) Keywords: general terms should be avoided; I would change some of the keywords (homologues, identification, quantification)The key words have been changed as follows: ××××××修改后关键词(2) In paragraph 2.1 the "local biochemistry pany" should be identified by name and location.The name and location of the local biochemistry pany have been added in section 2.1 (page 3). NaOH，Pyrogallol，anhydrous Na2SO4 were purchased from Hangzhou ChangqingHuagong CO., LTD.(3) How the cis and trans configuration of double bonds in ××××××were determined? Authors should say something about.The following paragraph has been added in section 3.1 (page 5) to further explain the determination of the cis and trans configuration of double bonds in ××××××.(4) Language should be checked for clarity and correctness.Thelanguage was improved by English language editing of Elsevier webshop.To Reviewer 2#,Thank you very much for your remendation on our paper and we have improved by English language editing of Elsevier webshop.All in all, thank you very much for your reconsidering our revised manuscript for potential publication in Fitoterapia. I'm looking forward to hearing from you soon. Correspondence should be addressed to ****第一作者或通讯作者at the following address, phone and fax number, and email address.地址Phone: + 86571××××××Fax number: + ××××××Email address:所有作者总的来说，第一篇文章没有费很大劲。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
外文投稿经历与感想今年很幸运的有两篇文章被wiley旗下的杂志接受了。
投稿和审稿过程历经波折，期间不断地和导师同学讨论怎么补充实验数据，怎么调整文章结构，怎么完善英文表述，收获颇丰。
和实验室其他投搞的同学也时常交流投稿过程的心得，现写下来以飨博友。
有偏颇之处还请批评指正。
由于导师的严格要求我们的文章只允许投影响因子3以上的杂志，而且实验室组会做最新文献报告的环节都要用英文讲化学专业的顶级期刊，如J. Am. Chem. Soc. 和Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 等，就是为了培养我们的英语能力和加深对优秀期刊的认知。
刚开始非常不适应感觉太难了，但三四年下来就觉得真是收获不小，对写论文和投稿也有很大的帮助。
投稿外文期刊最大的收获，正如我们导师所言的就是可以看看我们自己的研究水平在国际上到底是个什么水准，国外相关领域的专家对我们的研究到底是怎么评价的，我们的研究还有哪些地方需要改进和突破的。
实际上，论文投稿应该是从确定课题动手做实验就开始了，包括实验方案的设计和实验的过程。
因为如果没有很好的idea，所做的课题结果就算再好可能也只是重复别人的工作，缺乏创新性的文章很难投送到好的杂志上去；而没有扎实充分的实验数据支持，文章的结论是不会得到审稿人认可的。
所以文章投稿的质量一开始就决定了，当然也不排除实验过程中发现的一些很好的意外的结果，但毕竟是少数。
而写文章最难的就是文章的开头关于研究背景知识的介绍和结尾关于实验结果的讨论总结及意义之所在。
正是在写研究背景的时候，通过研读大量文献并分析归纳之，升华了对该领域的了解。
而写结尾的时候，则要客观准确地分析本实验的数据之间的相互论证关系以及能否支持做出的结论。
文章中间部分的'Result and Discussion' 和'Experimental Section' 相对比较好写一点，只要你的实验数据是正确的充分的。
投稿国外期刊还有个很重要的特点就是，期刊编辑会要求文章作者推荐出3个左右的审稿人。
这个要求初看上去好像不太合理，让人觉得作者会否推荐对自己有利的甚至是包庇自己的人呢。
但实际上是完全不用担心的，因为最终审稿人的确定还是编辑说了算，如果一看找的都是身边的中国人，那么编辑可能根本就不会理睬你推荐的审稿人了。
当时我写好文章初稿给导师的时候，他让我找四个审稿人发给他，倒是把我难住了，我心想我又不认识什么牛人，我推荐有用吗，而且人海茫茫到哪去找啊。
后来师兄告诉我可以在自己文章的引文里面找，这样就保证了审稿人是熟悉这个领域的(既然你引了他的文章自然他和你做的研究就很接近了)。
于是，我就在审稿人里面找了2个所谓的大牛和2个和我做的最接近的研究者，在google上搜索出他们的联系方式，一并Email给了导师。
经过1个月左右的等待，我们收到了回复，结果被拒了。
被拒我一点也不意外，因为投的是Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 。
当时我就建议导师不要投那么好的，有点缺乏信心的样子。
导师说没关系，文章的新颖性可能稍差了点但实验结果还是很好的，可以试试，就算被拒了，也可以看看国外同行的评价，没有坏处。
第一个审稿人的总体评价如下：“Referee 1:Importance: D) important but too specializedHypotheses Yes/No: YesAppropriate Length: YesDifferent Journal: ChemBioChemRecommend Acceptance: C) Yes, but only with major alterations ”正文部分主要的评价是以下几点：“This is a solid study with a good set of data. The work in general is well done. However, I am not convinced that this current manuscript is suitable for a placement in Angew Chem for the following considerations:1) The novelty of the work is not clear.2) The introduction is not very informative as to what was known and what question was being addressed specifically. It is too general to be: a) useful to a broad audience and b) informative about the novelty of the work. The work may be novel, but it is hard to tell what is actually the significant advance beyond what has been already demonstrated. The authors need to be precise, particularly considering there is no ground-breaking idea but it is about the modifications or combinations of existing strategies.3) The quality of writing could be further improved.”另外还有几点就是指出文章一些拼写等细节上的错误。
可以看出总体上第一位审稿人还是肯定这个工作，而且在是否推荐接受(Recommend Acceptance) 的选项给的是“Yes”。
但是由于这是我写的第一篇文章，对于怎么样写出文章的创新性上缺乏经验，在“introduction”部分没有给出充分的信息，且没有精准的说明清楚此文章比前人的工作有何突破。
再就是中国人的稿件可能都会遇到的问题“The quality of writing”。
第二个审稿人的总体评价如下：“Referee 2:Importance: C) importantHypotheses Yes/No: YesAppropriate Length: YesDifferent Journal:Recommend Acceptance: C) Yes, but only with major alterations ”正文部分主要的评价是以下几点：“1) The method seems interesting, while not so sensitive in its current implementation.2) Besides the scientific content, the language of the manuscript is totally unacceptable. Before submitting the paper again, it should be completely rewritten by someone with a good ability in (scientific) English. As it is now, it should not be accepted by any international journal.”同时也指出了文章一些细节上的错误。
看到了“As it is now, it should not be accepted by any international journal.”竟然说所有的杂志都可能不会接受。
看来是要在文字的表述方面下大功夫了。
第三个审稿人的总体评价如下：“Referee 3:Importance: B) highly importantHypotheses Yes/No: YesAppropriate Length: YesDifferent Journal:Recommend Acceptance: B) Yes, with minor alterations ”正文部分主要的评价是以下几点：“While none of the individual components are original, the setup and combination of the elements are interesting and worthy of publication. Furthermore, and as pointed by the authors (last sentence) the design is straightforward and could easily be extended to a variety of molecular targets.”也指出了文章一些细节上的错误。
这个审稿人的态度是最温和的，基本没有提太尖锐的问题，而且推荐接受程度(Recommend Acceptance) 给的是“B”，比前两位的“C”要好。
从三位审稿人的态度可以看出，导师的基本判断是对的，只是文章写的还不够完善，有硬伤即创新性(novelty)，也有太多软伤(The quality of writing)，或许多到了没“咔嚓”的地步。
于是，根据编辑的推荐，我们直接转投了他们旗下的另一个杂志，很快就接受了。
从以上审稿人的意见和编辑的编排顺序可以看出，第一审稿人是对该领域最熟悉的，所以编辑也是最看重他/她的意见。
后来转投的杂志的审稿人仍然是他/她，不过只有他一个人审稿了，因为文章原则上已经接受了。
第二篇文章投的过程也很类似，都是被Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.拒了，再由编辑推荐到另一杂志直接接受的。
但有个地方我觉得很有意思。
在投出去的第一稿时，文章是按照中国人作文的模式写的，即“起承转合”，我们把最基础但最不重要(相对而言)的定性的实验数据放在了最前面，而把最主要最能说明问题的定量的数据放在了最后。
但在得出结论的时候，我们发现最后的数据虽然很好也很能说明文章的主旨思想，但是有一个小数据和前面的实验结果不太一致。
这就导致了第一稿文章一个致命的硬伤，即实验数据不能充分论证实验结论，而且存在相冲突的地方。
于是，我们补充了一些实验数据然后把文章结构重新编排了一下，把最有说服力的定量的数据放在了最前面，而把定性的结果放在了后面，作为对定量数据的一个支持，整个文章的顺序倒了过来。