拒稿信汇总教学教材.docx

资源描述

拒稿信汇总教学教材.docx

《拒稿信汇总教学教材.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《拒稿信汇总教学教材.docx（6页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

拒稿信汇总教学教材.docx

拒稿信汇总教学教材

拒稿信汇总

【求助】plos one 拒稿信，帮忙看看怎么办，谢谢

straybird179

只看楼主

各位大侠，小妹第一次投稿plos one，等了一个月后，被拒，拒稿信大致内容如下：

First, a majority of the figures are not experimental in nature ...... Second, the idea that a tentative conclusion is made is not rigorous. Third, the idea that .......is not rigorously tested and does not appear supported by the data .

请教各位是不是说明我的论文结构有问题还是我的实验设计有问题？

要怎么修改？

各位战友：

今天收到medical hypotheses 的拒稿信，但是内容奇怪，我是10月12投的，13编号，昨天DECISION IN PROGRESS 今天就被拒绝很是郁闷请问大家也收到过类似的回信吗，请各位战友解读一下，本人还想继续投，有点不爽。

附信如下：

Thank you for submitting your paper to Medical Hypotheses. I have now read the manuscript... Unfortunately, it is our opinion that your manuscript does not appear to be a strong candidate for consideration in Medical Hypotheses and would be as appropriately published in another journal.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

Yours sincerely

Dr. M. Manku PhD

Editor in Chief

Medical Hypotheses

各位前辈，由于急于毕业，文章投BBRC，5天后状态是completely reject，拒稿理由很多且没有一句正面肯定的评论，而拒稿信中又说可以重投，我不理解既然我的文章一无是处，为什么还建议重投呢？

不知是不是我理解错了？

另外5天（包括周六、周日）就被拒了，是不是编辑给拒的，没有任何专家审过呢？

我该怎么办呢？

在线等待您的解答...（附部分拒稿信）

After a careful review of your manuscript, I am afraid that we are not able to accept it for publication in BBRC in its current form. As you know, this is a rapid communication journal and not all submissions, regardless of their merit, are suitable for this format. Our standards are increasingly high, and in fact, approximately 80% of submissions do not meet our criteria.

..........

I strongly encourage you to significantly revise your manuscript based on the above commentary. The concerns of the reviewer should be addressed point-by-point in the cover letter and changes in the manuscript must be identified by page and paragraph, and noted by underlining or italics in the text. Please submit your manuscript as a new submission and note that it will be assigned to the same editor.

各位战友：

附信如下：

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

Yours sincerely

Dr. M. Manku PhD

Editor in Chief

Medical Hypotheses

SC 19:

36:

请问各位前辈我的文章被拒了，拒稿信如下：

I have read over your paper and believe it is of potential interest to readers of Clinical Biochemistry. However I believe that given the focused nature your work that the best format would be as a Brief Report （Short Communication） rather than as a full paper.

If you wish to submit please reformat your paper according to the journal's Guide for Authors as a short communication.

Please note that resubmission does not guarantee acceptance for publication.

Thank you for your interest in Clinical Biochemistry.

这样的Brief Report和一般的文章有什么差别？

我还有必要把它改成Brief Report 再投吗，还是改投别的杂志？

谢谢了

最近老收到拒稿信, 有点伤感.

Dear Dr. *

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Lung Cancer. We regret to advise that after careful consideration of your paper and several unsucessful attempts for external review, we have decided not to publish your contribution in the journal.

We receive considerably more manuscripts than we have room to publish, so competition for space in the journal is intense. Although your contribution was not successful on this occasion, we hope that you will not be put off from considering Lung Cancer for future submissions.

Yours sincerely

Rolf Stahel

Editor-in-Chief

Lung Cancer

投稿三个半月，只等到一封拒稿信，我能去信要审稿人的评论么？

不甘心呀！

外文审稿不是应该都给作者审稿人的评论吗？

Dear Dr. x,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to x x x.

The manuscript has been through our review process.

Unfortunately, your paper cannot be assigned sufficient priority to

allow publication. The content of the paper submitted does not represent a

focus area for this journal.

The manuscript would in our opinion be better directed to a journal

other than DRCP.

I am sorry to disappoint you on this occasion.

Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to consider your paper and we

very much hope to receive further manuscripts from your group in

future.

Yours sincerely,

xxxxxxxxxxx

SC 19:

38:

Dear Dr. Hu:

I write you in regards to manuscript # 09-09-0539 entitled "##" which you submitted to Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. I regret that, in view of the assessmentof the reviewerfound at the bottom of this letter, your manuscript has not been selected for publication in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. The journal receives many more high-quality submissions that it can publish and our Editorial Team, in the context of the reviewer comments, must identify the most impactful manuscripts for the limited publication space available.

Thank you for considering Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics for the publication of your research. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts, and we wish you success in achieving publication of this manuscript elsewhere.

Sincerely,Scott A. Waldman

Editor in Chief,

Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

cpteditor@ascpt.org

Reviewer' Comments to Author:

Reviewer:

Comments to the Author

This meta-analysis addresses an important clinical question about #### in drug metabolism by CYP450. The methodology used to conduct the analysis appears to be appropriate. The manuscript could be improved by addressing the limitations of the analysis in the discussion section and expressing the findings of the analysis more concisely. An assessment of the quality of the individual studies would also be helpful in interpreting the findings of the meta analysis.

Reviewer:

Comments to the Author

The manuscript by Hu and Zhao entitled “##” examines the influence of ## on the hepatic and intestinal CYP450. This is of considerable interest as there a have been sporadic reports of ## in the expression of CYP450 at intestinal and hepatic sites.

Reference 11 is a subset of the individuals presented in Reference 25. Data from reference 11 （abstract） should not be used in the meta-analysis.

It is unclear if differences in the route of administration （IV push versus IV infusion） would affect the findings of the analysis.

Please comment on the known significant difference in body weight between males and females and how this affects the findings of the study.

A fixed order design such as those employed in References 4, 16, 24, and 25 are not considered to be randomized studies.

09-Nov-2009 Dear Dr. Hu:

Thank you for submitting a revised version of your paper （09-09-0539） to Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. The revised paper and point-by-point response have been considered by the Associate Editor team and, regrettably, the decision has been made that we cannot consider the paper further. Please be aware that in addition to the referees your paper was considered by an Associate Editor who felt that although the topic of your paper is of interest, it is more suitable for a more specialized journal.

Due to the number of high-quality submissions we are currently receiving, the editors are tasked with selecting the most impactful papers for the limited publication space available and resubmission is rarely allowed. We wish you success in achieving publication of this manuscript elsewhere.

Sincerely,

Scott A. WaldmanEditor in Chief,

Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeuticscpteditor@ascpt.org

SC 19:

39:

Dear Dr *,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to our journal. After careful consideration we regret we are unable to accept your manuscript. It has been carefully reviewed by the editorial team, and we felt that on the basis of priority and other manuscripts we have already accepted, that we would be unlikely to include it in the International Journal of Cardiology in its current format. To avoid any unnecessary delay we are sending the manuscript back so you can submit it elsewhere if you wish.

We do however feel that we might consider publishing your work as a Letter and if you would like to re-submit it in this format we would be pleased to look at it again. Letters would need to be restricted to 1000 words. They should have a title page, a short abstract, a main body of text and references.

最近投了International Journal of Cardiology，IF两点多，从投稿到今天被拒将近两个月一直都是with editor状态，郁闷啊。

我想问一下如果我按照这个信里说得以letter形式修改后再投过去的话，被接受的可能性有多大呢？

我的第一篇SCI，已经被拒了N次了，现在只要能发出去就行，不管啥形式。

请有经验的朋友指导一下，谢谢！

I have received the report from the first reviewer who is among the leading experts in the field of xxx. I am expecting to receive the report from the 2nd reviewer in the next few days. As you can see from the attached report, the reviewer has raised some serious questions on the experimental design and data analysis and interpretation. In this case I won't not be able to consider to accept your paper for publication in xxx even if the report from the 2nd reviewer is less critical. As we can only accept papers where referees and the editor are enthusiastic about the paper. To prevent further delay in the publication of your paper, I am returning the paper to you for you to resubmit to a more suitable journal. Meanwhile I will send you the report from the 2nd reviewer as soon as it reaches me.

看了审稿意见真是哪哪都不好，难道我自己对文章的评价是如此失误么，我知道这个杂志对我的文章来说是高攀了，但是我不觉得我的文章一无是处，现在看到这个结果真的不想改了。

觉得没有价值了，大家帮帮我把，我还有改的意义么，肯定是比不了业得了。

SC 19:

40:

Regrettably, however, I cannot publish it in the Journal, mainly because of lack of pages available for printing, reflected in a present acceptance percentage around 15 which forces us to be very selective, thanking no to a lot of good papers, among which your own. Moreover, we receive a rather high number of papers on XXX and allied topics making the competitio

展开阅读全文