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
稿子太多，不肯能每个人都看。
很正常的，因为稿件不可能只有一份，很多份无法那么多人都看的，而且说明稿子也确实没有什么亮点，无法刺激别人的兴奋点，所以一个人看了就不会再又第二个人去看了。
1 一定要有吸引力的题目，思路清晰的摘要和漂亮的图。这三者是决定SCI论文命运的关键。实际上大部分reviewer，审稿的方法是快速看一下SCI文章文章题目，摘要和图，如果这三者不满意，这篇文章基本就Over了。一定要让reviewer心情愉快！不要挑战他的心情！因为这些reviewer大多是大忙人，你让他觉得烦了，你的文章不会有好结果。
2 标题简洁、明确，有力。尽量不要出现novel, new等字眼，从逻辑的角度讲，写科技文章的目的就是报道新的进展，如果不新的话那也没有发表的必要了。从审稿人的角度讲，他首先不会因为你写了个new就会觉得你的文章有新意，有时候还会适得其反，让审稿人觉得你在挑战他的经验和智商，于是千方百计找你文章里不new的地方。中文杂志中经常会出现“初探”“初步研究”等词，这些都不宜在SCI文章中出现。
3.Abstract里不要充斥大量数字。因为人对数字是最不敏感的，abstract需要的是清晰的逻辑思路，一定要层次分明。
4 图与表的选择问题。能用图尽量用图表示，包括各种统计图。图更直观一些，表都是数字，很难理解的。如果一篇文章让reviewer看起来“难受”的话，结果就可想而知了。另外，近年来主张图尽量组合在一起，这样也容易理解一些。图也要涵盖足够的信息，不能动不动就出来一个图，一篇文章的图也不是越多越好，因为图占用太多的版面。
5 参考文献和引用一定要规范。最好用文献管理软件（如Endnote）来编辑，不要手工制作，费力且不讨好。对于所有的投稿文章，参考文献全部重新查找，并用软件生成，确保不犯各种小错误。
6.节标题的拼写一定要准确。不建议用一个单词，而建议用一个短语或句子。
7.切忌超长段落。一般一个段落以3到5个句子为宜，千万不要追求一气呵成的感觉而堆在一起，动辄一页纸的大段落让谁看了都犯愁。一定要让文章看起来简洁清爽。
8.图表切忌模糊不清。在审稿阶段图表和正文一般是分开的，要求图的质量要高，要有足够高的分辨率。
9.遵循科技写作的常规要领。科技写作是有着自己的一套规则的，不讲规则只能是让审稿人觉得你是个新手或者非正规军，这样拒起稿来几乎没有什么心理压力。
10.文章的格式要符合规则。一般来讲通篇双倍行距，段落之间留出空行，正文跟参考文献字体要区分开。
当然一篇文章的成功与否取决于很多因素，好的写作不一定能够保证它一定被录用，但是至少可以避免它过早的被reject，或者本来应该是minor revision的稿子给批成了major revision。以上只是本人总结的一些细微之处，但这些也是最容易做到的，希望跟大家多多交流。
1、选择合适的SCI期刊。
2、下载Introduction for submission。只要到每个杂志的首页，打开submit paper一栏，点击Introduction查看或下载即可。
3、稿件及其相关材料准备-Preparation：Manuscript.doc、Tables.doc、Figures.tiff（jpg等）、 Cover letter，有时还有Title page、Copyright agreement、Conflicts of interest等。
4、网上投稿-Submit a manuscript：先到每个杂志的首页，打开submit paper一栏，先以通讯作者的身份register一个账号，然后以author login身份登录，按照提示依次完成：Select Article Type、Enter Title、Add/Edit/Remove Authors、Submit Abstract、Enter Keywords、Select Classifications、Enter Comments、Request Editor、Attach Files，最后下载pdf，查看无误后，即可到投稿主页approve submission或直接submit it。 当然，不少杂志采用email投稿，这时候，你需要注册一个hotmail或yahoo，或gmail信箱，然后将cover letter的内容略修改作为信的内容，将文章各部分作为附件发送过去。一般不建议用国内的信箱，因为不少国外的杂志对国内的信箱是屏蔽的。
5、定期关注稿件状态-Status：Submit New Manuscript、Submissions Sent Back to Author、Icomplete Submissions、Sbmissions Waiting for Author's Approval、Submissions Being Processed、Submissions Needing Revision、Rvisions Sent Back to Author、Icomplete Submissions Being Revised、Risions Waiting for Author's Approval、Revisions Being Processed、Declined Revisions。一般来说，投稿后，一周以内便可以进入审稿状态，1-3个月会有初审结果。如何关注呢，如果是你自行投稿，建议三天，一周，半个月，一个月，两个月均check一次。
6、修回稿的投递-Submitted the revised manuscript：主要修改revised manuscript、response to the reviewers、cover letter，关键是response letter，这非常关键，要逐条回复reviewers的意见，这里面技巧相当多。程序是进入投稿主页main menu，点击revise，仍然按照原先程序投递（近似于4），切记把修改的标题、摘要和回复信等内容要修改。最后上传附件时，先把留下来且未修改的材料前打钩（表示留下不变），然后点击next，再上传已经修改的材料（主要包括revised manuscript、response to the reviewers、cover letter等），最后下载pdf，查看无误后，即可到投稿主页approve submission或直接submit it。
7、校样-Correct the proof：一般编辑部先寄出三个电子文档，包括Query、Proofs、p-annotate，有时也可能伴有纸质文档校样。校样后通过E-mail 寄出即可，或通过email确认。一般校样作者自行核对，我们有专门的校样工作人员，可以检查出在校样过程中，发现的一些细微错误。对文章进行最后的完善。
8、版权协议-Copyright agreement和利益冲突-Conflicts of interest：一般首次投稿时就需要提供，但也有少数杂志是Accepted之后才需要提供。
付款。一般文章确认接收后，有付款的过程。
第一步：投稿
发sci文章，必须要在sci期刊上刊登出来，否则sci文章就没有发表的可能。大家知道sci文章投稿很重要，一旦投错，会带来很多不必要的麻烦。为了能够完成sci文章投稿，作者必须保证sci文章匹配合适的期刊；sci文章符合期刊格式要求；以及准备好sci文章投稿所需材料。
第二步：审核
sci文章投稿后，进入审核程序。首先通过杂志社编辑初审，符合sci期刊要求，而且sci文章质量不错的情况下，此时会被推送给审稿人，未被推送的sci文章则会被拒；然后就是审稿人审核后，给出评审意见；最后杂志社编辑综合审稿人意见，给予作者拒稿、修改，以及录用的答复。
第三步：修改
修改的sci文章，附有修改意见，作者可根据审稿人意见逐一修改，并在规定的时间内提交返修后的sci文章。如果有异议的，作者可直接与编辑沟通解决。大家要注意，因sci文章质量不同，则sci文章修改次数不同，建议大家在撰写sci文章时，一定要保证sci文章质量，避免sci文章多次修改，影响sci文章发表。
第四步：录用
返修后的sci文章通过审核后，你是sci文章才会被录用，反之作者的sci文章被拒稿。
第五步：签约
期刊与作者签订版权合同。因期刊不同，则期刊收费不同，此时，作者可能会支付相应的费用，也可能无需支付，作者可做好准备工作，如版面费和审稿费等。
第六步：校稿
sci文章校稿环节是杂志社给作者提供的最后一次纠正文中错误的机会，虽说到这个环节，绝大多数sci文章已经没有什么问题了，有问题的基本在sci文章审稿环节已经修改到位，但也不免会出现一些细微的错误，因此作者对于sci文章校稿还是需要认真对待的，另外，sci文章校样应在规定的时间内按要求尽快返回杂志社编辑部，以免拖延期刊按时出版。
第七步：online
sci文章online就是线上发表，发表的sci文章通常会在见刊前，先线上发表。
第八步：见刊
期刊印刷出版，即发表的sci文章随着本期期刊印刷出来。
第九步：检索
见刊后的sci文章向数据库送检，一旦收录，即为成功检索。
