SCI 投稿经历.docx
《SCI 投稿经历.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《SCI 投稿经历.docx（10页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。
SCI投稿经历
今天收到邮件，我的一篇JournalofAppliedPhysics论文已被接收，心情当时还是有点激动。
虽然这个杂志的影响因子不是很高，大概2.2左右吧，这也不是我的第一篇SCI论文，但回想这一年发文章的坎坎坷坷，以及亲身经历的四川大地震，心里还是有很多的感触。
这篇论文是我在2008年二月份完成的最初稿，于二月九号投到PhysicsLettersA上，在经历了Technicalcheck，witheditor，underreview后，于三月二十号收到编辑的决定信，当时就傻了－拒稿！
受打击了。
下面是编辑的信以及审稿意见，我想把它贴出来与虫友们分享，一方面我认为，通过看审稿人的意见，可以帮助大家更好地写作，提高自己的科研水平和能力，另一方面也是答谢小木虫上很多无私的虫友们，是他们将自己的投稿经历贴在网上，与大家分享，我想我没有理由不拿出来哈！
同时，也希望小木虫的虫子们能继续发扬这种精神，大家同舟共济，共同提高！
好了，废话说了一大堆，不说了，下面是PhysicsLettersA的审稿意见：
Ms.Ref.No.:
××××××
Title:
×××××
PhysicsLettersA
Dearprofessor××,
Reviewers'commentsonyourworkhavenowbeenreceived. Youwillseethattheyareadvisingagainstpublicationofyourwork. ThereforeImustrejectit.
Foryourguidance,Iappendthereviewers'commentsbelow.
Thankyouforgivingustheopportunitytoconsideryourwork.
Yourssincerely,
×××（编辑名）
Editor
PhysicsLettersA
Reviewers'comments:
Reviewer#2:
Manuscript
Theauthorspresentresultsofthe3Delectronpotentialof
agatedquantumpointcontactinaAlGaAs/GaAsheterostructure.
Incontrasttoearlierstudies,itisnowpossibletoderivethe
potentiallandshapewithoutanyadjustableparameter.Theresults
stillagreewithearlierinvestigationsusingsimplerphenomenological
models.Sincetheusednextnano3programisavailablesincea
coupleofyears,Iwonderwhythishasnotbeendoneearlier.
Theauthorsemphasizeanapplicationoftheirresults.Having
thecompletepotentiallandshapemighthelp,inthefuture,
tobetterunderstandthequantizedacoustoelectriccurrentin
SETSAWdevicesandtoimprovetheirperformance.
However,theauthorsdonotshoworevendiscusshowthiscan
beachieved.ThereforeIbelievethatinthepresentformthepaper
isnotsuitableforpublication.
Theauthorsshouldconsiderthefollowingsuggestions,questions,
andremarks.
1）Page1,firstparagraph
'...duetothenegativelyappliedgatevoltage...'.ItistheSAW
thatdrivestheelectronsthroughthecontact,notthegatevoltage.
Maybereplacethissentenceby'...,dependingontheappliedgate
voltage'.
2）Page3,paragraphstartingwith'Generally,thequantized...'
'...withfixedx=1050nmand...'.Skipthe'.0'.Onecouldadd
thatthisisexactlyatthecenterofthedevice.
3）Attheendofthesameparagraphis'...oncethebiasisbelow...'
Shouldthisnotbethegateinsteadofthebiasvoltage?
4）Page4,paragraphstartingwith'Asweknow,inthe...'
'...Tobedifferentfrompreviouscalculations...'replaceby
'...Incontrasttopreviouscalculations...'.
5）Thestronglydifferentbehaviouraboveandbelowthepinch-off
voltageisnotobviousforthenon-experts.Allcurveslookmore
orlessthesame.Onecould,forexample,addanotherfigure,or
insert,toshowthepotentialheightversusgatevoltage.
6）Howdothesetheoreticalresultsofpotentialheightversusgate
voltagecomparewithexperiments?
Thereexistsatleastone
reporttodeterminethepotentialheightofquantum-pointcontacts
belowpinch-offasfunctionofgatevoltage（Gloosetal.,Phys.
Rev.B73,125326（2006））.Possibly,onecouldalsocomparethe
presentdatawith3Dsimulationsofquantumdots（Vasileskaetal.,
Semicond.Sci.Technol.13,A37（1998））.
7）Figure1，Itwouldbebettertomarkthedistancebetweenthetwometalgates
astherelevantparameter,andnotthesizeofonegate.
8）Figure3
Thenumberingofthetwodensityaxeslooksratherodd.Coulditnot
bedonewithintegers,like3insteadof3.2or3.0?
9）Figure5（b）
ShouldtherenotbeananomalyorkinkinthepotentialneartheFermi
level?
在仔细读了审稿人的意见后，我觉得审稿人提出的5）和6）意见非常好，后来自己想想，决定把文章来个彻底的修改。
1.改动文章的英语，审稿人提出了几个英语的语法。
这个很容易改。
2.改动文章的结构。
换了很多图。
因为我们做的是实验和理论计算的结合。
首先，我加了实验。
把我们实验当中照的有关样品的结构补充到了文章当中，比如分裂栅的结构，叉指的结构等等。
3.把我们理论计算得到的在二维电子气中的势垒高度和我们的实验做了对比，遗憾的是我们的实验当时只做了三条曲线，后面的审稿意见就提出来了，这点后面再说。
也就是满足了审稿意见6）。
然后把计算的势垒高度画成与分裂栅电压的关系，满足了审稿意见5）
4.加了理论计算声电电流。
这个在PLA稿中没有，我们的计算所用到的势场是我们自己计算得到的，而不是用简单的解析表达式的形式。
这个修改可是个相当漫长的过程，期间我们经历了人生一辈子都不会忘记的5.12四川汶川大地震。
受地震的影响，文章的修改拖了三四个月。
改完之后，由于自我感觉良好，所以胆子也大起来了，于是就投到了PhysicalReviewB中的RapidCommunications板块，很快编辑就回信了，客气地说我的文章太长了，然后建议我修改后作为regularpaper投PhysicalReviewB。
这里我还是把编辑的信贴出来与大家分享。
DearDr.×××,
Weacknowledgethereceiptoftheabovemanuscriptsubmittedto
theRapidCommunicationssectionofPhysicalReviewB.
Wehaveexaminedyourmanuscriptanditappearstobequitefocused
onapplicationandmaterialscience.Therefore,amoredetailed
letterastowhatnewandsignificantphysicsispresentedinyour
manuscriptandwhyPhysicalReviewBisthemostappropriatejournal
foryourmanuscriptwouldbeveryhelpful.
Pleasenotethatindoingapreliminarycharactercount,wehave
foundthatyourmanuscriptistoolongfortheshortpapersections
ofourjournal.Inviewofthisandtheabove,wefeelthatit
willbemoreproductiveifweconsiderthisasaregulararticle
whenwereceiveapersuasiveresponsetotheaboveconcern.Youmay
alsowishtoreviseyourmanuscriptsothatthenewandsignificant
physicsisbetterhighlighted. Inaddition,pleaseexpanditinto
aregulararticleformat（e.g.byaddingsectionheadings）andwe
encourageyoutoaddanymaterialourreadershipmaybenefitfrom
sincenolengthlimitapplies.
Wewillholdyourmanuscriptinourofficeuntilwereceiveyour
response.
Yourssincerely,
××××
SeniorAssistantEditor
PhysicalReviewB
Email:
prb@ridge.aps.org
Fax:
631-591-4141
http:
//prb.aps.org/
Physics-spotlightingexceptionalresearch:
http:
//physics.aps.org/
PRLCelebrates50Years:
http:
//prl.aps.org/50years/
PRBEditors'Suggestions:
http:
//prb.aps.org/#suggestions
LENGTHCHECKDATA （New02/07）
ManuscriptNo.BWR1056 FirstAuthorGuo
Figure Label Width Height Picas Percent Cols TotalLines
1 1 37 34 20 0.54 1.0 20
2 2 24 21 15 0.62 1.0 15
3 3 30 21 15 0.50 1.0 11
4 4 24 40 15 0.62 1.0 27
5 5 25 20 15 0.60 1.0 13
6 6 25 19 15 0.60 1.0 12
7 7 24 18 15 0.62 1.0 12
LINECOUNTS
Textlines 381（Includestitle,abstract,byline,pacs
receiptdate,text,acknowledgment,
captions,and,references.）
Equations 30
Tables 0
Figures 110
TOTAL 521（Maximumlengthis480）
Authortosupply:
___Abstractofnomorethan600charactersincludingspaces.
___OriginalFigure（s）____________________with
___finerand/orlargerletteringtopreventitsfillinginwhen
figureisreduced. Minimumletteringsizefortheenclosed
figuresis__________.
COMMENTS:
Manuscript:
None
Tablesandcaptions:
None
Figures:
None
======================================================================
FORMS:
======================================================================
Pleaseseethefollowingforms:
http:
//forms.aps.org/author/lengthguide-pr.pdf
LengthGuidelinesfor:
PhysicalReview
当时觉得编辑这么说了，感觉还是挺有希望的，于是快马加鞭修改，之后就投出去了。
下面是论文的处理过程
09Dec08Editorialdecisionand/orrefereecommentssenttoauthor
13Oct0808Dec08Reviewrequesttoreferee;editorconcludesresponseunlikely
13Oct0808Dec08Reviewrequesttoreferee;reportreceived
04Nov08Remindertoreferee[otherssent（notshown）at1-2weekintervals]
04Nov08Remindertoreferee[otherssent（notshown）at1-2weekintervals]
13Oct0818Oct08Reviewrequesttoreferee;reportreceived
07Oct0808Oct08Correspondencesenttoauthor;responsereceived
06Oct08Correspondence（miscellaneous）senttoauthor
10Sep0806Oct08Correspondencesenttoauthor;responsereceived
24Sep0825Sep08Correspondence（miscellaneous）senttoauthor;responsercvd
10Sep08Acknowledgmentsenttoauthor
08Sep08Correspondence（miscellaneous）senttoauthor
大概历时三个月收到审稿意见。
判决结果－拒！
有一次败了！
当时心情十分沮丧。
审稿意见如下：
DearDr.×××,
Theabovemanuscripthasbeenreviewedbytwoofourreferees.
Commentsfromthereportsareenclosed.
Weregretthatinviewofthesecommentswecannotacceptthepaper
forpublicationinthePhysicalReview.
Yourssincerely,
××××
AssistantEditor
PhysicalReviewB
Email:
prb@ridge.aps.org
Fax:
631-591-4141
http:
//prb.aps.org/
Physics-spotlightingexceptionalresearch:
http:
//physics.aps.org/
PRLCelebrates50Years:
http:
//prl.aps.org/50years/
PRBEditors'Suggestions:
http:
//prb.aps.org/#suggestions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ReportoftheFirstReferee×××/×××
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ThepaperaimsatthenumericalsolutionofthesetofSchroedinger
andPoissonequationsforasplit-gatestructureandsubsequent
applicationoftheresultstocalculationofquantized
acoustoelectriccurrent.
Thepaperissoundandwellwritten.However,inmyview,itdoesnot
containenoughnewphysicstowarrantitspublicationinthePhysical
Review.Sincetheworkseemstobeusefultopeopleinvolvedin
optimizingstandardsofelectricalcurrentIrecommendtoresubmitthe
papertoajournalmorespecializedonapplications,suchasthe
JournalofAppliedPhysics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ReportoftheSecondReferee--×××/×××
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thesubjectofthepaperisaninterestingone,althoughthefocusof
thecommunityhasshiftedawayfromitinthemeantime.Nevertheless
thepaperwouldbeworthpublishingifitgavebetterevidenceinthe
interest
升级会员 