如何在peer review发表论文

如何在peer review发表论文

很多期刊发paper都需要peer review这个过程，在这之后也可能被拒，而且大文章周期特别长，一般需要一年以上

论文题目： clinical implications of xxxx (一种病理指标) in x cancer 所投杂志：bmc cancer. 结果：这次大修后被接受发表（同时编辑在接受信中 提出课题是否得到伦理委员会同意的问题。作者在论文适当地方加上了有关陈述） 审稿人内容（有删节）： reviewer"s report clinical implications of xxxx (一种病理指标) in x cancer version: 1 date: 12 june 200x reviewer: xxxx xxxx (a japanese reviewer) reviewer"s report: general ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- major compulsory revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 1. xxxxx. 2. xxxxx. 3. xxxxx. 4) the clinico pathological parameters examined are reported in table 1. among the primary tumor characteristics, the authors consider the diameter, but ignore t stage. consequently the t parameter is not considered in the multivariate analysis. in other studies, t stage has emerged as an independent factor. the authors should therefore state the reason for their unusual choice. nor is the number of metastatic nodes reported in this table. moreover, for tumor differentiation, the authors distinguish between two groups (differentiated vs undifferentiated), instead of between the usual 3 categories (g1, g2 and g3). i have never heard of the histological classification used by the authors (massive, next and diffuse). they might therefore state their reasons for choosing it, providing a reference, if available. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- minor essential revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) xxxxx. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- discretionary revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) (none) what next?: reject because too small an advance to publish level of interest: an article of limited interest quality of written english: needs some language corrections before being published [b]statistical review: yes, but i do not feel adequately qualified to assess the statistics. 作者原答: t stage is considered in the multivariate analysis, and some modification has been made in tumor differentiation and histological classification. 建 议改答： we accept dr. xxx comment (表明你对审稿人的欣赏和赞同). in the revised version of the manuscript, t stage has been added in the multivariate analysis, and description of tumor differentiation and histological classification has been modified; the histological classification in the original manuscript has been replaced by the generally accepted classification (page 6, line 15; table 4) (同意审稿人的建议，并根据其建议进行修改。同时指出在何处做了修改。). 加注：作者原回答与修改后的回答并无本质差 别，正文中的修改也是一样的。但作者原回答会给审稿人“不太乐意”或“轻描淡写”的印象。因为审稿人花了122个单词来就此问题发表建议，而作者只用了 20个。 修改后的回答，相信一开始就赢得审稿人的好感。你的回答不光是给审稿人看的，杂志编辑也会看（至少审稿人会这么认为），所以，审稿人会有 种满足感（国外审稿人没有酬劳，得到作者和编辑的认可是他们审稿最主要的目的）。建议得到认可（当然，这里审稿人的确是正确合理的），而且作者还按其建议 对文章进行修改，相信绝大多数审稿人是不会（不好意思）再拒绝修改稿的（所谓伸手不打笑面人）。当然，这篇文章起死回生、二审通过审稿关，关键是杂志编辑 手下留情，给了作者再投(re-submission)的机会。 有时，审稿人的建议得到作者认可，但作者无法按建议修改，尤其补做试验。这种情况 将在以后举例说明。