发布时间：
王应宽Wang Yingkuan2011-07-23Beijing, China因为同时在运作3本国际英文刊（IJABE, IAEJ, CIGR Journal），论文同行评审的专家来自世界各地。每次收到的评审意见千差万别，而且不同国家或地区的专家的评审意见呈现一定的规律性，随即不由得做些比较。比较得出的基本结论是：欧美国家专家的评审意见详尽具有更大参考价值，台湾地区的同行评审专家次之，大陆专家的评审意见最为简省。文后附上几篇评审意见（所列大陆专家评审意见还是相对较好的），看看便知，一目了然。我曾与编辑同行讨论关于国内专家审稿的问题。共同的见解是，一线一流的专家基本不审稿。若应邀审稿，要么直接拒审，要么敷衍几句了事；比较认真的专家大都让其所指导的研究生代为评审论文。不论让谁审，最后的评审意见与国外专家的评审相比总不令人满意，存在较大的差距。国外专家评审论文大都是义务劳动，没有任何报酬。但专家们认为自己作为科研人员是科学共同体中的一分子，有义务担任同行专家为他人研究成果的学术质量把关。自己为别人的论文评审把关付出了智慧和劳动，别人也会为自己的研究和论文评审把关，也会付出相应的劳动。专家之间相互协作，相互帮助，虽然没有评审报酬，但大家都觉得平等。而且，国外的专家大都言行一致，故能认真地做好每一篇文章的评审工作。有的评审意见详尽的令人赞叹、钦佩和感动。因此，大家看到他们的评审意见都非常详尽而具有参考价值。而国内的专家评审论文为何大都仓促应付，三言两语，或言之无物，或毫无参考价值？主要原因是一线一流的专家都太“忙”，以至忙得都没时间做学术了。据我从事学术期刊工作十多年的经历，不论评审中文文章还是英文文章，国内专家评审意见普遍简单，评审的质量不高，不但看不出有改观的迹象，还有进一步恶化的趋势。文章中存在的很多的问题，专家审后没有看出来或没有指出来。如果直接发表，错误或疏漏太多影响论文的质量和期刊的声誉。在外审专家靠不住时，就要依靠内审做些完善和提高。如果外审专家把不好关，编辑部又无能力通过内审把关，发表出来的论文的质量也就可想而知了。是否国内专家不擅长评审论文呢？非也。据了解，许多国内专家被国外知名期刊邀请审稿时，他们非常积极认真地评审论文，并在规定时间返回颇有水准的评审意见。据说他们也能做得与欧美国际同行专家一样好。可见，国内专家评不好国内期刊论文不是水平问题，而是态度问题，“时间”问题，或者有其他方面的原因。同行评审是学术期刊论文质量把关的重要途径。如果大家都不在乎，把严肃认真的“盲审”变成“瞎审”，学术危矣！国内期刊请国内专家评审论文大都支付审稿费的。当然，限于各期刊的经济困难，审稿费报酬普遍都不高。因此，同行专家大都不很在乎那点可怜的审稿费。如果评审不好文章会影响专家的声誉和公信度。国内特别是大陆的专家既不在乎钱，也不在乎自己的声誉，不知道他们究竟在乎啥？中国是雷锋诞生的国度，按理说，当志愿者做公益应该很有基础。但在学术圈，就拿国内外同行专家无私奉献评审论文作比较，中国的同行专家做的还很不够，需要好好向国际同行学习。附：CIGR Journal栏目主编加拿大专家对一篇退稿文章的评审意见June 27, 2011Dear Prof. H L L:Re: CIGR Manuscript 1911 EFFECTS OF TRACTOR INFLATION PRESSURE AND TRAFFIC ON SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIESAs CIGR section editor, I have conducted a preliminary review of the above manuscript.The manuscript addresses a significant engineering problem in agricultural crop production, and as such, the subject matter is of interest to CIGR.However, the manuscript is deficient in several scientific areas.The decision is to decline the manuscript without peer review.My preliminary review is attached to the end of this email.Please note that the preliminary review is by no means a comprehensive review.The manuscript is released, and you are free to submit it for publication in another journal.Thank you for considering CIGR for publication of your work and I wish you success in getting your work published.SincerelyP.Eng., Ph.D.,CIGR Section III editor,Research Scientist, Agricultural Engineering,Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,Section Editor ReviewTitle: EFFECTS OF TRACTOR INFLATION PRESSURE AND TRAFFIC ON SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIESCIGR # 1911Authors:H L L et al.June 27, 2011General:The manuscript addresses soil compaction by multiple passes with agricultural machinery which is a timely topic and of importance to sustainable agricultural production.There are numerous grammatical errors although the meaning is generally clear.It is strongly recommended that the authors seek the assistance of someone well versed in English to help with the grammar.The manuscript is not acceptable in its present form.It needs a lot of work.The biggest problem with the manuscript is that key pieces of information are not given, and that the data analysis is not complete.Some of the major deficiencies are listed below although this is by no means an exhaustive list.Soil characteristics.It is well known that soil characteristics have a huge influence on soil compaction.The only description given is that the soil was a sandy loam.Things like soil series, percent sand, silt and clay, soil organic matter all influence compaction and need to be provided.Tractor specifications: Total tractor weight, tractor axle (or wheel) weights, are critical pieces of information required for compaction studies, but they are not given.Tire pressure was given, but no information was given on whether these pressures were the same for front and rear tires.Often, tractor manufacturers recommend different pressures for front and rear tires, particularly on tractors with different sizes of front and rear tires.Slip was measured, but there was no mention made of whether the tractor was free wheeling (no implement draft) or whether it was pulling a load.The drawbar load on a tractor has a huge effect on wheel slip, and must be specified.It was mentioned that a 4WD tractor was used, and different tire sizes were given for front and rear tires which implies that it was a front wheel assist.It needs to be specified whether or not the front wheel drive was engaged.Results: A randomized complete block statistical design with three replicates was specified.However, the results are given in a series of tables with simple means with no statistical analysis. The results need to be subjected to appropriate statistical analysis, i.e. ANOVA or multiple regression analysis, and appropriate post hoc tests applied to determine which means are statistically different from each other.The experimental design employed lends itself to standard statistical analysis of the results.Graphs should be used when appropriate to help illustrate the data and the trends.Table 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 and elsewhere. Cone index has wrong units.Cone index is normally given in MPa or kPa.Also, the values for cone index are much lower than normally expected.Section 2.3It is not necessary to list all of the equipment used such as oven, air compressor, etc.All you need to say is that samples were oven dried at 105�0�2 C for soil moisture determinations.Things like air compressor and pressure gauge are every day shop equipment, are understood to be necessary for any type of experiment where inflation pressures are changed.However, things like the penetrometer, and shear vane meter should be specified.These are specialized pieces of equipment and their performance can affect the results.Section 2.5.Need to provide information on which soil cone penetrometer you used.Also, how many penetrometer measurements per plot per pass?3)In Figure 4, the text “USB Connection” was overlapped by the line.4)In Figure 4, the line with the “Information Collection” is missing an arrow.5)In Figure 7, the text “field identifying number” was covered by the line.6)In Figure 8, some texts are placed out of the frames.7)Please use consistent fonts in figures throughout the article.Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor/Editor-in-chiefI recommend the authors should use consistent fonts throughout the article. The paper cannot be accepted in its present form.中国大陆专家1评审论文意见Section III: CommentsThis section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need. General Comments:This paper assess the O2 consumption rate and the CO2 evolution rate in tomato pomace treated with Pleurotus ostreatus without and with Mn to determine if peak colonization rate (for heightened delignification) was delayed by amendment. Generally speaking, the author’s work is useful and suggestive. The author gives a brief introduction to the related work and compares his ideas to others. The theoretical analysis of this article is strong.In all, this manuscript has good novelty and strong technical strength, I’m looking forward the results of further investigations on this topic.Specific comments:In Table 1, notes are not enough in this manuscript. In the Results and Discussion, results have been detailed explained, but some theoretical analysis of the experimental data are not sufficient.Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division EditorI hope the paper will be published to guide more researchers.Reviewers’ information (Blind to Authors)中国大陆专家2评审论文意见(相对而言属于国内专家评审较为认真仔细的了)Section III: CommentsThis section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need. General Comments:Variable Spray will play an important role in saving resources, protecting environment, raising quality of agricultural product. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate PWM-based continuous variable spray in terms of spray distribution pattern, spray droplet size, and spray angle for flat-fan, hollow-cone and solid-cone nozzles. The test design, results, analysis and conclusion are correct. After re-review, this paper may be published, I think.Specific comments:(1)I have read a paper named “Variable rate Continuous Spray Equipment Based on PWM Technology and Its Spray Characteristics”, which was published in Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2008, 39 (6): 77-80 (in Chinese)”(see the attachment), I think that is a previous study work of the authors. If that is correct, I suggest the author adding that paper in the references of this paper. And then, the contents which have been described in the previous paper can be deleted from this paper.(2)In the abstract “The sensitivities of the spray angles to flow-rate are 0.8254o/%、0.6681o/%、0.5761o/% respectively for flat-fan, the hollow-cone and the solid-cone nozzles”. In English, without the symbol “、”.(3)The numerical data in the conclusion are not the same as those in the abstract”.Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division EditorReviewers’ information (Blind to Authors)中国大陆专家3评审论文意见Section III: CommentsThis section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need. General Comments:This paper is more important, but it still needs major revision requiring re-review.Specific comments:Revision suggestions of this paper: 1. The study results and conclusions should be clarified in abstract.2. It should be described clearly about the data and size of NACA0015 airfoil which was selected in the numerical simulation in section 2.1.3. It should be described clearly about the specific quantitative conditions of icing in section 3.4. This paper is required re-review after revision.Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor
首先我不知道BB是什么意思，很可能是期刊的缩写，其次也不知道期刊质量如何，一般来说越好的期刊，审稿周期越长，因为稿源充足，所以审稿人和编辑任务量都很重，再次，投稿的时候国外6-7月份都是要放假的，很多专家都出去休假，这个时候也是编辑最难受的时候。而且，投稿大于审稿周期是很常见的情况，我师妹的文章几个月了都没消息，我还见过编辑忘了分配稿件的情况，结果一下子稿子沉了三个月没人管，所以这都是在正常不过的。如果你是在觉得等不起，那就写信问编辑什么情况，但是催稿一般都容易悲剧，但分有点耐心都不要兵行险招，除非你对自己文章的水平极为自信。
大BB么 几个月都有可能、可以给编辑发个邮件
对学术期刊而言投稿者最晚需要在6月进行投稿。根据查询相关公开信息显示，对学术期刊而言，投稿者最晚需要在6月进行投稿，才能在9月见到自己的论文发表。
论文取消、任何论文职称问题、论文考试答辩取消、条件放宽文件政策，搜：要我发先起腰发我就发腰（换成数字）论文热线，翻到58页后，有总结的经验教训、各种问题解答、刊物汇总、各省各系列报考评审条件汇总，应有尽有。只记得经验教训：一、大道至简、职称不难。二、对照评审条件找差距。三、业绩技巧。四、不符合评审条件也可能合格。五、2012年后，关系的作用几乎是零。发现规律：搜任何论文问题答案、免费期刊，有两个办法，都是搜后翻到58页后。一、11位电话号码在后，搜：论文热线要我发先起腰【发】我就发腰（【发】换成汉字八，其他换成数字，再搜，注意必须搜够11位。否则不但找不到，还会搜到假冒的。后同）。同样搜：任何问题+后同即11位号码（第七位换成汉字八），如搜：高级职称论文（后同）、高级职称论文取消（后同）、高级职称论文价格（后同）、高级经济师论文（后同）、高级会计师论文（后同）、其他职称论文（后同）、职称论文收费标准（后同）、职称论文价格（后同）、职称论文期刊杂志（后同）、职称论文发表（后同）、职称论文怎么写（后同）、职称论文三大网站（后同）、职称论文任何问题（后同）、论文快速见刊+后同。以高级经济师为例，搜：高级经济师任何问题+要我发先起腰【发】我就发腰（把【发】换成汉字八，其他换成数字再搜），都能找到答案。如搜：高级经济师论文（后同即11位电话号码、第七位换成汉字八）、高级经济师论文取消（后同）、高级经济师论文范文（后同）、高级经济师论文选题（后同）、高级经济师报考条件（后同）、高级经济师评审条件（后同）、高级经济师考试科目（后同）、高级经济师考试用书（后同）、高级经济师评审业绩成果（后同），等。把“经济”换成“会计、审计、统计、政工、工程、教师、医师等任何职称”再搜，都能找到答案。以高级职称论文为例，搜：高级职称论文的要求+要我发先起腰【发】我就发腰、高级职称论文价格（后同）、高级职称论文发表要求（后同）、高级职称论文有效期（后同）、高级职称论文期刊（后同）、高级职称论文答辩（后同）、高级经济师论文（后同）、高级会计师论文（后同）、其他职称论文（后同）。搜：任何省任何职称论文+（后同），如搜：河南高级经济师论文（后同）、山东高级会计师论文（后同）。必须搜：问题+11位。二、11位电话号码在前，搜：要我发先起腰发我就发腰（换成数字）论文热线，同样搜：（前同即11位号码）+任何问题，如搜：（前同）高级职称论文、（前同）高级职称论文取消、（前同）高级职称论文价格、（前同）高级经济师论文、（前同）高级会计师论文、（前同）其他职称论文。收费刊物要快点，一般三个月左右，不收费的刊物主要看你的论文的质量，周期相对要长一点。如果急用，就找一家正规收费刊物发表，这当中要注意必须确定无疑是正规刊物。道新闻出版署网站查一下就知道了，地址等信息也要一致。
期刊发表一般需要一个月到三个月。看你找的哪家出版社了，每家出版社的运作方式不一样。
如何发表期刊
首先就是注意格式规范，还要控制字数。因为很多刊物是按计空格字数收费的，所以，您要根据需要确定文章的字数，省得花冤枉钱。比如，高校评中级职称一般3500字就可以了，社会上评高级会计师、高级工程师等，3000字以上即可。还要注意，如果文章有图表，则要适当增加版面。
文章的选题要与刊物的定位对路。每一本刊物都有自己特定的宗旨、栏目和专业定位，投稿前必须先对此进行了解。还要搞清是季刊、双月刊、月刊还是半月刊、周刊，这直接影响您的稿件发表的速度。
发表论文的途径有两种，一是自己投稿，优点选择范围比较大(想投哪个期刊就投哪个)和极少数情况下可以不花钱。缺点审稿时间长、版面费高、有的风险、对于急需要发表论文的作者不适用。
普刊的审核周期在10几天左右，见刊时间在3-4个月左右核心的审核周期在3-4个月，见刊时间在一年左右。
不同的杂志的周期不同，要耐住性子快的在6、7月就可以出刊了。 收费刊物要快点，一般三个月左右，不收费的刊物主要看你的论文的质量，周期相对要长一点。如果急用，就找一家正规收费刊物发表，这当中要注意必须确定无疑是正规刊物。道新闻出版署网站查一下就知道了，地址等信息也要一致。1)国内中文核心期刊：速度差异很大，快的一个月左右通知修改或者录用，慢的3个月以上才给修改意见。当然，拒稿的情况，总体来说还是蛮高效，一般一周到一个月拒稿，不至于浪费太多时间;刊出从1年到2年不等;2)国内普通期刊：录用比较快，基本1个月左右给出录用通知，刊出也基本在1年以内;3)国外SCI期刊：慢的4个月才给审稿结果，当然是极少数;刊出时间从半年到1年多不等。总体来说效率比国内期刊高。
一般审核时间就要30个工作日，也就是一个月左右，通过审核直到发表最少需要半年的时间。
核心期刊是某学科的主要期刊。一般是指所含专业情报信息量大，质量高，能够代表专业学科发展水平并受到本学科读者重视的专业期刊。有关专家研究发现，在文献情报源的实际分布中，存在着一种核心期刊效应，即某一专业的世界上的大量科学论文，是集中在少量的科学期刊中。
1931年著名文献学家布拉德福首先揭示了文献集中与分散规律，发现某时期某学科1/3的论文刊登在3.2%的期刊上；1967年联合国教科文组织研究了二次文献在期刊上的分布，发现75%的文献出现在10%的期刊中。
1971年，SCI的创始人加菲尔德统计了参考文献在期刊上的分布情况，发现24%的引文出现在1.25%的期刊上，等等，这些研究都表明期刊存在“核心效应”，从而衍生了“核心期刊”的概念。
依据布拉德福定律，如果科学期刊按其所刊载某一学科论文的数量多少，依递减顺序排列并划分出一个与该学科密切相关的期刊所形成的核心区期刊区以及另外几个区，使每个区中的期刊载文数量相当，则核心区期刊数量与相继区的期刊数量成1：n∧2：n∧3：n∧4……即刊登与某一学科或专业有关的论文较多的那些期刊。
核心期刊分两种，一种是中文核心期刊，一种是科技核心期刊。中文核心期刊审稿时间一般在1-3个月，3月后没收到回复，文章基本就被否决了，你可以自己处理你的论文了科技核心期刊审稿时间一般在15-30天，1个月以后还没收到回复，就自行处理论文。中文核心期刊从投稿到录用，一般是6-12个月；科技核心期刊从投稿到录用，一般是3-6个月。最快也要3个月左右发表，有关系也能够采取机构帮忙，像品 优 刊 这样的，也不需要担心的。
一般周刊、旬刊、月刊、双月刊、季刊、半年刊投稿时间是逐渐递增的，周期越长，论文需要的投稿时间越长。如果着急评职称的话，优先选择期刊周期短的期刊吧。
一般需要6个月吧，审稿得3个月，发刊至少得3个月。
投稿是有稿所投，如果硬性规定一周投稿不少于三天，那么很难保证稿件质量 ，既然有这么个要求，那应该是指隔天至少投一次稿。
1月初，organicletters的投稿时间为1月初，organicletters第一次投稿时间是1999年。
投稿时间要求：每日8点至18点投稿，法定节假日除外。三、所有来稿请直接将内容复制粘贴到邮件正文中。内容为：标题-正文-作者信息。如信息不全，不符合发稿要求的，将不予发布。严禁重复投稿或一稿多投。四、文章字数要求至少700字。通常要求有新闻源。新闻源的日期要选择在近一周的热点新闻，同时请注明新闻源的媒体名称、链接
对学术期刊而言投稿者最晚需要在6月进行投稿。根据查询相关公开信息显示，对学术期刊而言，投稿者最晚需要在6月进行投稿，才能在9月见到自己的论文发表。