如何避免审稿人的大斧Word文档下载推荐.docx

如何避免审稿人的大斧Word文档下载推荐.docx

《如何避免审稿人的大斧Word文档下载推荐.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《如何避免审稿人的大斧Word文档下载推荐.docx（10页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

请用Ctrl+C复制后贴给好友。

HowtoAvoidTheReviewer’sAxe:

OneEditor’sView[转载]

[注：

原文作者StephenD.Senturia，转载自JMEMSEditorial,June2003]

Editor’sNote:

StephenD.SenturiahasbeenamemberoftheBoardofEditorsforIEEE/ASMEJMEMSsincethejournal’sfirstissuein1992andwasnamedaSeniorEditorin1998.Thisexperience,coupledwithhisservicefrom1985-95astheSolid-StateSensorsEditorfortheIEEETransactionsonElectronDevices,addsupto17yearsinaneditor’schair.Overtheyears,Stevehaskeptmentalnotesonthemyriadproblemsthatauthorshavewithreviewersandhasbeeninspiredtocompilethefollowing“advicetotheauthor”aboutwaystokeepreviewerssatisfied;

hence,tokeepthem‘atbay’.

ABSTRACT

Basedonhismanyyearsofexperience,aJMEMSeditorprovides‘guidelinesforauthors’thatwill,iffollowed,greatlyreducetheriskofadevastatinglynegativeresultfromthereviewprocess.Thepremiseisthattherearecertainthingsthatrightfullyangerreviewers,and,onceangered,thereviewersbecomebothnegativeandaggressiveintheirjudgments–hence,theimageryof“thereviewer’saxe”andhowtoavoidit.

INTRODUCTION

Sincethisisapersonalcommentary,Iwillusethefirstperson,somethingthatnoproperwriterofscientificdiscoursewouldeverdo.Asanauthorofmanytechnicalpapersovermy35-yearacademiccareer,Ihavetoooftenfelttheanxietyofopeningthatenvelopefromthejournaleditor,which,fromitsbulk,obviouslycontainsmypreciousmanuscript,returnedtomeforeitherminorrevision,massiverework,or–theultimatewound–assignmenttothemanuscriptaltrashbin.

Now,havingspentsome17yearsontheoppositesideofthetable,mycumulativeexperiencewithmanymanuscriptsandalmostequallymanyunhappyauthorsisthattheprimaryreasonreviewersattackcertainmanuscriptsisthatthosemanuscriptsaregenuinelyflawed.Many,ifnotmostauthorswon’tagree,atleastnotatfirst.SoIthoughtitwouldbehelpfultoauthorstosetdownsomepracticalsuggestionsforpreventingthereviewer’saxefromgivingtheauthorsawhack.

Ascientificmanuscriptisintendedtocommunicatenewinformationandtoteachnewmaterialtoawillingaudience.Manyauthorsforgetthissimplefact;

rather,theyviewthewritingprocessasanopportunitytobolstertheirownegosandimpressthereader,evendiscomfitthereadersomewhat,eitherwithtoomuchmaterialortoolittle.Sincetherearemanydifferentstylesofpaper,Iwillselectahypotheticalexampleofanexperimentalpaperinwhichtheauthorsmakeaminoradvanceinanestablishedexperimentalmethod,andtheythenusethismethodtoobtainsomenewresultsthataretobecomparedwithamodelthatisalsoaminormodificationofalreadypublishedwork.Alongtheway,someunusualbehaviorisobservedthatthemodifiedmodelcannotexplain.Theauthorsbelievethattheyunderstandwhythisbehaviorisobserved,andwishtoproposetheirexplanation,eventhoughtheyhavenotyetdonethedefinitiveexperimentstoprovetheirhypothesis.

SENTURIA’SGUIDELINES

Howshouldtheauthorsthinkaboutorganizingandwritingthispaper?

Iproposeasetofsimpleguidelines.Thenamesarelistedbelow,followedbysomediscussioninwhicheachguidelineisexploredindepth:

?

（Almost）NothingisNew.

RelyontheBelievabilityIndex.

WatchforGamblingWords.

Don’tBeaLongfellow.

Don’tPullRabbitsOutofHats.

MineAlltheGold

Remember:

ReviewersareInarticulateandAuthorsare（somewhat）Paranoid

Violationofoneormoreoftheprinciplesexplainedundereachguidelinerisksgettingthereviewerangry（withcause）,andoncethathappens,theaxecomesoutandswingswithpurpose.Idon’tbelievethatamanuscripthaseverbeenwrittenthatcannotbeimproved,butanangryreviewerfindsmanymorefaultsthanareviewerwhobelievesthattheauthorhasbasicallydoneahighlyprofessionaljob,bothofresearchandofwriting.It’sjustplaindumbtoaggravateareviewer.Everyauthor’sgoalshouldbetokeepthereviewer’saxeinitssheath.

（Almost）NothingisNew

Everyoneknowsthatthereisnothingnewunderthesun.Everyone,thatis,exceptanambitiousauthorwhobelievesthathisorherworkisunique.Whilethereareafewtrulyuniqueandamazingresultspublishedonceinawhile,mostofourworkisbuiltontheworkofothers.

Itiseveryauthor’sobligationtoestablishclearlythecontextinwhichthenewworkbelongs,bothbyabriefintroductionandbythecitationofappropriatereferences（whichtheauthorshouldhaveread,notsimplycopiedfromsomeoneelse’sreferencelist）.Ifanauthordoesn’tknowanyrelevantreferences,thenheorsheshouldgeton-lineandfindthem–theyarethere!

Iusedtotellmygraduatestudents:

“First,figureoutwhatyouhavedone.Then,gotothelibraryandfindit!

”Theymightnotfindexactlywhattheythemselveshaddone,buttheywouldfindallkindsofrelevantmaterialthatneededtobesiftedtofindthecriticalsubsetthatwassorelevantthatitdemandedcitation.

Alongtheway,therearesomeadditionalprinciplestofollow:

>

Ifyouhaveamanuscriptonacloselyrelatedtopicthatiseitherburiedinsomeconferencedigest,isstillinreview,orhasalreadybeenacceptedbyajournalbutisnotyetinprint,itisyourobligationbothtonotifytheeditorandreviewersoftheexistenceofthispaperandprovidepre-publicationcopiestoaidthereviewprocess.Thisisperhapsthesinglemostsignificantsourceofreviewervenom–thediscoveryofarelatedpaperthattheauthorshavekepthiddenfromthereviewers.Andthevenomisreal–thereviewerfeelsthattheauthoristryingtotrickthereviewprocess,sooutcomestheaxe.

Ifareferenceisrelevantenoughtoyourworktociteit,thenitisalsorelevanttoyourresults.Manyauthorsprovideacosmeticlistofreferencesatthebeginningofapaperbutneverreturntocomparetheirallegedlynewresultswiththecontentsofthecitedpapers.Thisinfuriatesreviewers,andrightlyso.Scientificadvancesaretheresultofconfirmationandcomparisonamongmanyindependentinvestigators.Whenresultsarepresentedwithoutanycomparisonstopriorwork,reviewersgetangry,andtheygetouttheaxe.

RelyontheBelievabilityIndex.

Theessenceofscientificadvanceisthatresultsarebelievablebecausetheyhavebeenrepeatedandcheckedbyindependentinvestigators.Bydefinitionthen,atrulynewresultisnotscientificallyconfirmeduntilithasbeenrepeatedbyothers.ThisleadsmetotheconceptofaBelievabilityIndex.

Increatinganoutlineforthishypotheticalexperimentalpaperwithmodestadvancesbothinexperimentalmethodandinthemodelandwithsomesurprisingresultsthatcomeout,theauthorshouldthinkaboutthebelievabilityofthevariousconstituentsoftheoutline.Clearly,theexistenceofacitedpublicrecordofpreviouslypublishedwork（regardlessofwhetherthatworkisorisnotcorrect）ishighlybelievable.Soarethebasiclawsofphysics,well-establishedtheoriesandmodels,andwidelypracticedexperimentalprocedures.Allofthesehaveahighbelievability.

Incontrast,anynewresulthasalowerbelievability.Ifaresulthasn’tbeenconfirmedbyothers,itisnot“established”andthereforeisintrinsicallylessbelievablethanapeer-confirmedresult.Atthelowestlevelofbelievabilityisanauthor’sspeculationastothereasonforanynewresult.（Saidanotherway,“Talkischeap.”）Butifanewexperimentalresultissufficientlydocumentedinamanuscript,reviewersmayacceptit,eveniftheydon’tagreewiththespeculativeexplanationforthenewbehavior.

AllofthisleadstotheprincipleoftheBelievabilityIndex,whichautomaticallyassignsanordertothecontentsofthepaper:

Writethepaperinorderofdecreasingbelievability.

Thebeautyofthisapproachshouldbeself-evident.Ifapaperiswritteninorderofdecreasingbelievability,eachreaderwillbeledtoagreewithwhatisstatedatthebeginning,becauseithashighbelievability,butlatermightbalkatacceptingeitheranewexperimentalresult（ifimproperlyexplained）oraspeculativeexplanation.AproperlyorderedpaperwillhaveNOcriticalhigh-believabilitycontentaftertheintroductionofthefirstmoderate-orlow-believabilitymaterial.Andthereaderwho,atsomepointalongtheway,failstoagreewiththeauthor,hasthebenefitofknowingallofthehigh-believabilitymaterialatthepointofdisagreementandthuscanfocusthedisagreementontherightissues.

Sample-preparationmethods,whichareassumedtobecompletelyfactualreportsofwhatanauthordid,shouldhaveahighbelievabilityandthusbelongearlyinapaper.Acommonmistakeofauthorsistosurprisereadersrelativelylateinapaper,wellbeyondthefirstlow-believabilitypoint,withareportofsomenewsamplepreparationsandthelike.Thatkindofwritingmakesforchoppypapersthatarehardtoread,andhard-to-readpapersirritatereviewers.

Ifyouarereportinganewexperimentalprocedure,inordertokeepitsbelievabilityhigh,youshouldtracebyexamplehowyougofromrawdatatoreduceddatatoextractedmeasuredresult,andmentionsuchthingsascalibration（ifnotbasedonacommercialinstrumentspecification）,thenumberofsamples,andtherelationbetweentheerrorbarsonthegraphandyourdata（isitfullrange?

probableerrorofthemean?

what?

）.Confirmationthatthenewmethodgivesanexpectedanswerinawell-knowncaseisanobviousbelievability-builder.Thishelpstoimprovethebelievabilityofyournewexperimentalresults,whichwaspresumabl