science bulletin 状态 under review
SCI审稿流程与修回处理要点及技巧2
SCI审稿流程与修回处理要点及技巧2来源：梅斯医学SCI文章的写作、统计以及结果部分整理和投稿前准备工作十分重要，做完这些工作后会把论文正式投出去，之后评审会根据我们的文章给出意见。
作者应该如何处理这些意见呢？昨天的文章中梅斯医学张发宝博士为我们讲解了SCI审稿流程与修回处理要点及技巧1，今天继续讲解SCI审稿流程与修回处理要点及技巧2。
一、Reviewer审稿的一般步骤Reviewer审稿时不会花很多时间，可能一篇文章只用15分钟甚至5分钟。
那么这么短的时间他到底看什么呢？首先要看题目摘要，要了解这篇文章想要证明的问题以及研究目的是不是有意思。
如果研究有新意，审稿人接下来会看研究设计。
如果研究设计没有太大缺陷，接下来就会审核一下PICOS各个研究要素。
如果有缺陷可以弥补，就提些意见进行大修。
如果还是没有什么缺陷，后续就是小修阶段。
这些关键问题看完之后，评审才会去看前言、讨论和参考文献，提一些minor的意见。
这就是审稿的一般流程。
二、SCI文章审稿周期影响审稿周期的因素非常多。
大部分期刊审稿周期一般都在三个月左右，三个月之内给出审稿意见都是正常的。
有的期刊审稿会超过三个月。
审稿周期由很多因素决定。
首先就是期刊的工作效率。
这涉及到期刊每年的收稿量，出版周期等。
另一个非常重要的限速步骤就是审稿人。
审稿人审稿的时间占整个审稿周期的80%-90%。
所以要看文章的研究方向是不是好找审稿人。
如果研究领域比较偏，很多时间都会浪费在分配审稿人上。
当编辑分配完审稿人后，投稿状态就会变为under review。
接下来就是漫长的under review阶段。
为什么有时候审稿时间会非常长呢？这当中有一种不好的传言，说找的审稿人做的研究和你的文章非常相像。
审稿人故意拖慢你的审稿时间，同时自己在补实验，想要抢在你之前发表或背靠背同时发表。
那么如何查询审稿周期呢？可以通过梅斯网站期刊智能查询系统，这个系统会给出一个审稿的大致周期。
pnas的under editorial board review
pnas的under editorial board review
PNAS的"Under Editorial Board Review"状态解析
PNAS，即《美国国家科学院院报》，是生命科学、物理学、化学等多个学科领域中的顶级学术期刊。
当研究者向PNAS提交论文后，稿件会经过一系列的审稿流程，其中，"Under Editorial Board Review"是这一流程中的一个重要环节。
"Under Editorial Board Review"直译为“在编辑委员会审查中”，这意味着稿件已经通过了初步的编辑筛选，并被发送到编辑委员会进行进一步的评估和审查。
在这一阶段，编辑委员会的成员会对稿件的整体质量、创新性、科学价值以及是否适合在PNAS上发表进行深入的评估。
对于作者来说，稿件进入"Under Editorial Board Review"状态是一个积极的信号，表明他们的研究工作已经引起了编辑部的兴趣，并有机会在PNAS这样的高影响力期刊上发表。
然而，这并不意味着稿件一定会被接受，因为编辑委员会可能会提出修改意见或建议，甚至可能会拒绝稿件。
因此，作者在收到编辑委员会的反馈后，需要认真对待每一条意见，进行必要的修改和完善，以提高稿件被接受的机会。
同时，作者也可以与编辑委员会进行沟通，解释自己的研究思路和方法，争取更多的理解和支持。
总之，"Under Editorial Board Review"是PNAS审稿流程中的一个关键环节，对于作者来说既是一个挑战也是一个机遇。
只有通过持续的努力和完善，才能将自己的研究成果成功地发表在这样的顶级期刊上。
acs catalysis 显示under review -回复
acs catalysis 显示under review -回复题目：Exploring the Review Process for ACS Catalysis JournalIntroduction:The scientific community relies on rigorous peer review processes to validate and improve the quality of published research. This article aims to explore the review process for ACS Catalysis, a renowned journal in the field. By understanding the steps involved in the review process, researchers can gain insights into the workings of the journal and enhance their chances of successful publication.Step 1: SubmissionThe first step in the review process for ACS Catalysis is the submission of a manuscript. Authors are expected to adhere to the journal's guidelines and formatting requirements. Once submitted, the manuscript goes through an initial check by the journal's editorial office to ensure it meets the minimum requirements for review.Step 2: Editorial AssessmentAfter the initial check, the manuscript is assigned to an editor whodetermines its suitability for publication. The editor evaluates the novelty, significance, and compatibility of the research with the journal's scope. If the manuscript does not meet the journal's criteria, it may be rejected at this stage.Step 3: Peer ReviewIf the manuscript passes the editorial assessment, it proceeds to the next stage, where it is sent out for peer review. ACS Catalysis follows a double-blind review process, meaning that the authors and reviewers are kept anonymous to ensure impartiality.The editor identifies potential reviewers based on their expertise and sends them an invitation to review the manuscript. The reviewers carefully evaluate the research design, methodology, results, and conclusions presented in the manuscript. They provide constructive feedback, identify strengths and weaknesses, and recommend revisions or reject the manuscript based on its scientific merit.Step 4: Decision and Reviewer's CommentsUpon receiving the reviews, the editor consolidates them and makes a decision regarding the manuscript's fate. The decision maybe acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection.If revisions are requested, the authors are given an opportunity to address the reviewer's comments and improve the manuscript. The revised version is then re-evaluated by the original reviewers or additional reviewers to ensure that the requested changes have been adequately addressed.Step 5: Acceptance and PublishingOnce the editor is satisfied with the revised manuscript, a formal acceptance letter is sent to the authors. The manuscript is then prepared for publication, and proofs are sent to the authors for final approval.Conclusion:The review process for ACS Catalysis involves several crucial steps, including submission, editorial assessment, peer review, decision-making, revisions, acceptance, and publishing. It is important for authors to carefully follow the journal's guidelines and address the reviewer's comments to increase their chances of successful publication. Understanding the intricacies of the reviewprocess can help researchers navigate the system and contribute to the advancement of their field.。
management science的under review -回复
management science的under review -回复Management science is a multidisciplinary field that aims to apply scientific methods, models, and techniques to managerial problems and decision-making. It draws on various disciplines such as mathematics, statistics, economics, and computer science to develop solutions and approaches for optimal decision-making and problem-solving in organizations.Currently, there is a paper in the field of management science that is under review. This means that the paper has been submitted to a scholarly journal and is currently being evaluated by experts in the field for its scientific rigor, relevance, and contribution to the existing body of knowledge. In this article, we will explore the steps involved in the review process and the significance of having a paper under review.Step 1: SubmissionThe first step in the review process is the submission of the paper to a suitable journal. The authors carefully select a journal that aligns with the scope and focus of their study. They ensure that their work fits within the journal's guidelines and meets the standards set by the journal's editorial board.Step 2: Desk ReviewOnce the paper is submitted, the editorial team of the journal conducts an initial desk review. This involves assessing the paper's fit with the journal's scope, checking for adherence to formatting and citation guidelines, and screening for plagiarism or ethical issues. If the paper passes this initial review, it proceeds to the next step.Step 3: Peer ReviewIn this step, the paper is sent out for peer review. The editor of the journal selects independent experts in the field who have expertise in the topic of the paper. These experts, also known as reviewers, evaluate the paper based on several criteria, including originality, methodology, data analysis, results, and contribution to the field.Step 4: Reviewer CommentsThe reviewers provide their comments, recommendations, and criticisms in a structured feedback form. They assess the strengths and weaknesses of the paper and provide suggestions for improvement. The comments are typically sent anonymously to the authors to maintain objectivity and fairness in the review process.Step 5: RevisionBased on the reviewer comments, the authors revise their paper. They carefully address each comment, making necessary modifications to enhance the clarity, rigor, and validity of their work. This may involve conducting additional experiments, clarifying explanations, or analyzing data from a different perspective. Revision often requires substantial effort and can be atime-consuming process.Step 6: ResubmissionOnce the authors have revised their paper, they submit the revised version back to the journal. The revised paper is then re-evaluated by the editor, who may send it back to the same reviewers for a second round of review or assign new reviewers to ensure that the required changes have been adequately addressed.Step 7: Final DecisionBased on the feedback from the reviewers and the revised paper, the editor makes a final decision. The possible outcomes include acceptance, acceptance with minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection. If accepted, the paper moves forward to the publicationstage. If revisions are required, the authors undergo another round of revisions before resubmitting their work.Having a paper under review holds significant importance in the field of management science. It signifies that the paper has undergone a rigorous evaluation process by experts in the field and is being considered for publication in a reputable journal. The review process ensures the quality and validity of research, allowing for the dissemination of new knowledge and insights in the field.In conclusion, the review process for a paper under review in management science involves several steps, including submission, desk review, peer review, reviewer comments, revision, resubmission, and a final decision. This process is crucial for maintaining the standards and integrity of research in the field. Having a paper under review signifies the progress made by the authors in contributing to the field of management science.。
科学通报英文版的endnote style
科学通报英文版的endnote style全文共3篇示例，供读者参考篇1Endnote style of Science Bulletin English EditionIn academic writing, citing sources is an essential aspect of ensuring credibility and giving credit to the original authors. One popular citation style used in scientific publications is the Endnote style. In this article, we will discuss the Endnote style specifically tailored for the Science Bulletin English Edition.The Science Bulletin English Edition is a prestigious scientific journal that covers a wide range of topics in various fields of science. As such, it is important for authors to follow the proper citation guidelines when submitting their manuscripts to ensure the accuracy and consistency of references.When citing sources in the Science Bulletin English Edition, authors should adhere to the following Endnote style guidelines:1. Formatting: In-text citations should be marked with superscript numbers in the order in which they appear in the text. The corresponding reference list should be included at the endof the manuscript, with each citation numbered and listed in the order of appearance.2. Journal Article: When citing a journal article, the Endnote style should include the author's name, title of the article, journal name, volume number, issue number, page numbers, and publication year. For example: Smith AB, Jones CD. The role of genetics in cancer research. Science Bulletin. 2021; 45(3):123-135.3. Book: When citing a book, the Endnote style should include the author's name, book title, publisher, publication year, and page numbers. For example: Brown EF. The history of physics. New York: Academic Press; 2019. p. 45-67.4. Website: When citing a website, the Endnote style should include the author's name (if available), title of the webpage, URL, and access date. For example: World Health Organization. COVID-19 situation report. Available at: www.who.int/covid19. Accessed September 15, 2021.5. Multiple Authors: When citing sources with multiple authors, list all authors' names in the same order as they appear in the original work. For example: Smith AB, Jones CD, Brown EF. The impact of climate change on biodiversity. Nature. 2020;563(4): 567-580.By following these Endnote style guidelines, authors can ensure that their citations are accurate, consistent, and in line with the standards set by the Science Bulletin English Edition. Proper citation practices not only enhance the credibility of the research but also help readers locate and verify the original sources.篇2Title: Endnote Style for Science Bulletin English EditionIntroduction:In academic writing, proper citation and referencing play a crucial role in ensuring the credibility and reliability of research. Endnote is a reference management software that helps researchers organize their references and automatically generate citations in various styles. In this document, we will provide guidelines on how to use the Endnote style for the Science Bulletin English Edition.Endnote Style for Science Bulletin English Edition:The Science Bulletin English Edition follows the reference style outlined by the American Psychological Association (APA). Therefore, when using Endnote to cite references for the ScienceBulletin English Edition, make sure to select the APA 7th edition style from the citation style options.Here is a step-by-step guide on how to use the Endnote style for the Science Bulletin English Edition:1. Open your EndNote library and navigate to the reference that you want to cite.2. Right-click on the reference and select "Copy Formatted".3. Paste the citation into your manuscript at the appropriate location.4. Make sure to double-check the citation for accuracy and correct formatting.5. Continue adding citations in the same manner throughout your document.In-text citations in the APA style typically include the author(s) and publication year. For example, (Smith, 2021) or (Smith & Jones, 2020).The reference list at the end of your document should be alphabetized by the last name of the first author. Here is an example of how a reference should be formatted in the Endnote style for the Science Bulletin English Edition:Book:Author(s). (Year). Title of book. Publisher.Journal article:Author(s). (Year). Title of article. Title of Journal,Volume(Issue), Page range.Website:Author(s). (Year). Title of webpage. Retrieved from URLConclusion:Proper citation and referencing are essential elements of academic writing, and using a reference management software like Endnote can help streamline the process. By following the guidelines provided in this document, researchers can ensure that their citations and references meet the requirements of the Science Bulletin English Edition and adhere to the APA style.篇3Endnote Style for Science Bulletin English EditionScience Bulletin, as an international peer-reviewed journal, follows a specific endnote style for citations and references in the English edition of the journal. The endnote style is designed toensure consistency and accuracy in citing sources and providing readers with the necessary information to locate the original works.When citing sources in the text, authors should use the author-date system, with the author's last name and the year of publication in parentheses. For example, (Smith, 2019). If there are two authors, the citation should include both names, separated by "&" (Brown & White, 2020). For sources with three or more authors, the citation should include the first author's name followed by "et al." (Taylor et al., 2018).At the end of the manuscript, all cited sources should be listed in alphabetical order by the author's last name. The reference list should include the following information for each source:1. For journal articles:- Author(s) last name, initial(s). (Year). Title of the article. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), Page numbers. DOI or URL.2. For books:- Author(s) last name, initial(s). (Year). Title of the book. Publisher.3. For chapters in edited books:- Author(s) last name, initial(s). (Year). Title of the chapter. In Editor(s) name(s) (Ed.), Title of the book (pp. Page numbers). Publisher.4. For websites:- Author(s) last name, initial(s) or Website Name. (Year). Title of the webpage. Retrieved from URL.5. For unpublished sources:- Author(s) last name, initial(s). (Year). Title of the document. Unpublished manuscript/research paper.Authors should ensure that all sources are accurately cited and that the format follows the endnote style guidelines provided by Science Bulletin. Failure to adhere to the endnote style requirements may result in delays in the publication process or rejection of the manuscript.By following the prescribed endnote style for citation and references, authors can contribute to the integrity and credibility of their research findings and ensure that readers have access to the original sources for further exploration and verification.In conclusion, the endnote style for the Science Bulletin English edition plays a crucial role in maintaining the journal's high standards of academic excellence and ensuring the properattribution of sources. Authors are encouraged to carefully review and adhere to the endnote style guidelines when preparing their manuscripts for submission to Science Bulletin.。
acs catalysis 显示under review -回复
acs catalysis 显示under review -回复ACS Catalysis is a highly esteemed journal that publishescutting-edge research in the field of catalysis. As a researcher, having your work accepted for publication in this journal is considered a significant achievement. However, before a paper can be published, it goes through a rigorous peer-review process. Seeing the status "under review" next to your paper can be both exciting and nerve-wracking. In this article, we will explore what it means for a paper to be under review, the process it undergoes during this stage, and what you can expect next.When a paper is submitted to ACS Catalysis, it undergoes apre-review screening process, where the editorial team decides if the paper fits the scope and quality standards of the journal. If the paper successfully passes this initial screening, it is sent out for peer review. During this stage, the reviewers evaluate the paper's scientific validity, significance, and originality.The first step in the peer-review process is the identification and selection of suitable reviewers. The editors carefully select experts in the field, typically from a pool of researchers who have previously published in the specific area of the submitted paper.These reviewers are chosen based on their expertise and their ability to provide knowledgeable and constructive feedback.Once the reviewers accept the invitation to review the paper, they are given a specific time frame within which they need to provide their feedback. This time frame can range from a few weeks to a few months, depending on the complexity of the paper and the availability of the reviewers. As an author, it is important to be patient during this period, as the review process can take some time.During the review process, the reviewers thoroughly examine the paper. They assess its scientific rigor, the clarity of the methodology, the accuracy of the results, and the significance of the findings. The reviewers also evaluate the paper's adherence to the formatting guidelines and the appropriateness of the references cited. They may provide suggestions for improvement, point out any potential flaws or limitations, and highlight areas that require further clarification.After the reviewers have completed their evaluation, they submit their reviews to the journal's editor. The editor then carefullyconsiders the feedback from the reviewers and makes a decision on the paper. There are generally four possible outcomes:1. Acceptance: The paper is accepted for publication without any major revisions.2. Minor revisions: The paper has some minor issues or concerns that need to be addressed before it can be accepted for publication. The authors are typically given a specific time frame to make these revisions.3. Major revisions: The paper requires substantial revisions in order to address the reviewers' concerns. The authors may need to conduct additional experiments, revise the methodology, or provide further clarification. It is common for papers to go through multiple rounds of major revisions.4. Rejection: The paper is not suitable for publication in ACS Catalysis, either due to insufficient scientific validity, lack of originality, or not meeting the quality standards of the journal.Once the editor has made a decision, the corresponding author isinformed of the outcome. If the paper requires revisions, the authors have the opportunity to address the reviewers' comments and resubmit the revised version. The revised paper is then reevaluated by the editor and potentially the same reviewers, who assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the concerns raised.The review process can be a challenging and time-consuming experience for authors. It requires patience, open-mindedness, and the ability to handle constructive criticism. The feedback received from the reviewers is valuable, as it helps improve the quality and impact of the research.In conclusion, when a paper is listed as "under review" in ACS Catalysis, it means that the manuscript has successfully passed the initial screening process and is being evaluated by expert reviewers. The reviewers thoroughly examine the scientific rigor, significance, and originality of the research, providing feedback to the authors. The editor then makes a decision based on the reviewers' comments and notifies the corresponding author of the outcome.。
nature review之后under consideration
nature review之后under consideration 当一篇稿件被送到Nature Reviews之后，状态显示为“under consideration”，这意味着编辑正在评估这篇稿件是否符合期刊的发表要求。
在这个阶段，编辑会考虑多个因素，包括但不限于稿件的创新性、科学性和重要性。
在这个阶段，编辑可能会与作者联系，要求提供更多信息或进行修改。
编辑可能会要求作者进行额外的实验或提供更多的数据，以支持稿件中的结论。
编辑还可能要求作者修改稿件的格式、语言和风格，以符合期刊的规范和要求。
如果编辑认为稿件不符合期刊的要求，他们可能会拒绝发表这篇稿件。
如果编辑认为稿件具有发表价值，他们可能会邀请审稿人审稿。
在审稿过程中，审稿人会对稿件的科学性、创新性和重要性进行评估，并提供反馈和建议。
总之，“under consideration”状态并不意味着编辑已经决定发表或拒绝这篇稿件。
作者需要耐心等待，同时与编辑保持联系，并按照编辑的要求进行修改和提供更多信息。
acs catalysis 显示under review
acs catalysis 显示under reviewACS Catalysis is a highly reputable scientific journal that publishes cutting-edge research in the field of catalysis. As a catalysis enthusiast, I was thrilled to come across an article with the intriguing title "[ACS Catalysis Under Review]." In this article, I will take you on a journey through the various stages of the review process for an ACS Catalysis publication, providing insights into the significance of each step and the role it plays in ensuring the quality and importance of the research being considered for publication.The initial stage of the review process begins once an author submits their research article to ACS Catalysis for consideration. The article undergoes an initial screening process by the journal's editorial team, who evaluate its suitability for the journal based on its scope, significance, and adherence to the journal's guidelines. Factors such as the novelty of the research, its relevance to the field of catalysis, and the clarity and integrity of the data presented are all taken into consideration during this screening stage. This ensures that only high-quality research articles are considered for further review, maintaining the journal's reputation for publishing impactful research.Following the initial screening, the article is then assigned to one or several expert reviewers who have in-depth knowledge and expertise in the particular field of the research. The reviewers are chosen based on their previous publications and their standing in the scientific community. They play a critical role in assessing the scientific rigor of the research, its originality, and its potential impact on the field. The reviewers meticulously analyze the article, paying close attention to the experimental design, methodologies, results, and conclusions. They also evaluate the clarity and coherence of the manuscript, ensuring that it is well-written and easily understandable to the scientific community.The review process typically involves two or more rounds of feedback and revision between the authors and the reviewers. The first round of reviews may bring forth suggestions for improvements, additional experiments, or clarifications needed in the manuscript. The authors carefully consider these suggestions and provide a detailed response, addressing each point raised by the reviewers. The authors may also revise their manuscript based on these suggestions and provide a revised version along with the response letter.Once the revised manuscript is resubmitted, it undergoes a second round of review. Here, the reviewers examine the revisions and determine if the authors have adequately addressed the concerns raised during the first round of review. The reviewers evaluate the revised manuscript, paying close attention to the changes made, and whether they have strengthened the research and addressed any methodological or conceptual issues. The second round of review is crucial in ensuring that the final manuscript meets the high standards set by ACS Catalysis.After the second round of review, the reviewers provide their final recommendations to the journal's editor-in-chief. Based on these recommendations, the editor-in-chief makes the ultimate decision of whether to accept the manuscript for publication, reject it, or request further revisions. This decision is made with the goal of publishing only impactful and scientifically sound research in ACS Catalysis. The decision-making process takes into account the reviewer's assessments, the overall significance of the research, and its potential contribution to the field of catalysis.In conclusion, the review process for ACS Catalysis publicationsinvolves a meticulous and rigorous evaluation of research articles by experts in the field. The process ensures that only high-quality, impactful research is published, and that the published articles contribute to the advancement of the field of catalysis. By understanding the steps involved in the review process, we gain a deeper appreciation of the immense effort and expertise required to produce reputable scientific publications like those seen in ACS Catalysis.。
management science的under review
management science的under review Management science is a multidisciplinary field that aims to apply scientific methods, models, and techniques to managerial problems and decision-making. It draws on various disciplines such as mathematics, statistics, economics, and computer science to develop solutions and approaches for optimal decision-making and problem-solving in organizations.Currently, there is a paper in the field of management science that is under review. This means that the paper has been submitted to a scholarly journal and is currently being evaluated by experts in the field for its scientific rigor, relevance, and contribution to the existing body of knowledge. In this article, we will explore the steps involved in the review process and the significance of having a paper under review.Step 1: SubmissionThe first step in the review process is the submission of the paper to a suitable journal. The authors carefully select a journal that aligns with the scope and focus of their study. They ensure that their work fits within the journal's guidelines and meets the standards set by the journal's editorial board.Step 2: Desk ReviewOnce the paper is submitted, the editorial team of the journal conducts an initial desk review. This involves assessing the paper's fit with the journal's scope, checking for adherence to formatting and citation guidelines, and screening for plagiarism or ethical issues. If the paper passes this initial review, it proceeds to the next step.Step 3: Peer ReviewIn this step, the paper is sent out for peer review. The editor of the journal selects independent experts in the field who have expertise in the topic of the paper. These experts, also known as reviewers, evaluate the paper based on several criteria, including originality, methodology, data analysis, results, and contribution to the field.Step 4: Reviewer CommentsThe reviewers provide their comments, recommendations, and criticisms in a structured feedback form. They assess the strengths and weaknesses of the paper and provide suggestions for improvement. The comments are typically sent anonymously to the authors to maintain objectivity and fairness in the review process.Step 5: RevisionBased on the reviewer comments, the authors revise their paper. They carefully address each comment, making necessary modifications to enhance the clarity, rigor, and validity of their work. This may involve conducting additional experiments, clarifying explanations, or analyzing data from a different perspective. Revision often requires substantial effort and can be atime-consuming process.Step 6: ResubmissionOnce the authors have revised their paper, they submit the revised version back to the journal. The revised paper is then re-evaluated by the editor, who may send it back to the same reviewers for a second round of review or assign new reviewers to ensure that the required changes have been adequately addressed.Step 7: Final DecisionBased on the feedback from the reviewers and the revised paper, the editor makes a final decision. The possible outcomes include acceptance, acceptance with minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection. If accepted, the paper moves forward to the publicationstage. If revisions are required, the authors undergo another round of revisions before resubmitting their work.Having a paper under review holds significant importance in the field of management science. It signifies that the paper has undergone a rigorous evaluation process by experts in the field and is being considered for publication in a reputable journal. The review process ensures the quality and validity of research, allowing for the dissemination of new knowledge and insights in the field.In conclusion, the review process for a paper under review in management science involves several steps, including submission, desk review, peer review, reviewer comments, revision, resubmission, and a final decision. This process is crucial for maintaining the standards and integrity of research in the field. Having a paper under review signifies the progress made by the authors in contributing to the field of management science.。
SCI论文发表过程中的几种状态
SCI论文发表过程中的几种状态许多 ___因为第一次投稿SCI或经验欠缺，不了解SCI审稿流程，稿件投出去很久后还未消息，不知如何处理，又不好意思写去催期刊，遇到这种困惑该如何处理呢?下面是为大家的关于SCI过程中的几种状态，供参考阅读，希望对您有所帮助。
目前SCI大多期刊都采用在线投稿系统，这意味着你的文章每一步状态都会显示，同样，投稿时你也需在在线系统进行，可以随时查看文章的状态，一般会有如下状态：当上传结束后，显示的状态是SubmittedtoJournal，这个状态是自然形成的无需处理。
如果在投稿的时候没有要求选择，就先到主编那里，主编会分派给别的。
这当中就会有另两个状态：①Editor assigned 分派②Editor Declined Invitation 拒绝邀请，这时主编不得不将投稿文章重新分派给其它。
说明审稿人已接受审稿，正在审稿中，这应该是一个漫长的等待(期刊通常会限定审稿人审稿时间，一般为一个月左右)。
当然前面各步骤也可能很慢的，要看的处理情况。
如果被邀请审稿人不想审，就会decline，会重新邀请别的审稿人。
审稿结束，等处理，该过程短则几天，长则无期，有时会出现required review pleted状态已近一个月了，还是没有消息的情况。
到了这一步就快要有结果了，开始考虑是给修改还是直接拒，当然也有可能直接接受的，但可能性很小，呵呵。
小修/大修，这个时候可以稍微庆祝一下了，因为有修改就有可能。
具体怎么改就不多说了，谦虚谨慎是不可少的(因为修改后一般会再发给审稿人看，所以一定要细心的`回答每一个审稿人的每一个问题，态度要谦逊，要让审稿人觉得他提的每个问题都很有水准的，然后针对他的问题，一个一个的做出答复，能修改的就修改，不能修改的给出理由，而且都要列出来，文章的哪一段哪一行修改了最好都说出来，记住：给审稿人减少麻烦就是给你自己减少麻烦!另注：有时，审稿人会在修改意见里隐讳里说出要你仔细阅读某几篇文献，这时可要注意了，其中某些文章可能就是评审者自己发表的，这时你最好在你的修改稿中加以引用)，修改后被拒绝的例子也多不胜数的。
- 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)。
science bulletin 状态under review
摘要：
一、科学通报（Science Bulletin）简介
1.科学通报的发展历程
2.科学通报的办刊宗旨
3.科学通报的影响因子
二、科学通报现状
1.当前的科学通报状态
2.科学通报接受文章的审稿流程
3.科学通报在科学界的影响
三、科学通报的未来展望
1.科学通报的发展趋势
2.科学通报在我国科学传播中的作用
3.对科学通报未来的期望
正文：
科学通报（Science Bulletin）是我国一份具有悠久历史和广泛影响力的自然科学综合性学术期刊。
自创刊以来，科学通报始终秉承“传播科学知识，促进学术交流”的办刊宗旨，为我国科学事业的发展做出了巨大贡献。
科学通报的主要内容包括自然科学各领域的原创性研究论文、综述论文、学术动态、研究简报等。
近年来，随着我国科学研究的不断深入和扩大，科学通报的影响因子也在
逐年提高。
这表明科学通报在学术界的影响力越来越大，得到了广大科研工作者的认可。
科学通报的这种地位和影响力，既得益于其严谨的学术态度和高质量的论文，也离不开广大科研工作者的支持和关注。
目前，科学通报的状态是“under review”，这意味着每一篇投稿到科学通报的文章都需要经过严格的审稿流程。
这个过程包括编辑初审、专家外审和终审等环节，旨在确保每一篇发表在科学通报上的论文都具有高度的学术价值和可靠性。
这种严格的审稿流程，既保证了科学通报的学术质量，也维护了科学通报的声誉。
在未来，我们期望科学通报能够继续保持其优良的学术传统，发挥其在科学传播中的重要作用。
同时，我们也期望科学通报能够不断适应时代发展的要求，创新办刊模式，提升办刊水平，为推动我国科学事业的发展做出更大的贡献。
总之，无论是在过去、现在还是未来，科学通报都将在我国的科学事业中发挥重要的作用。