學者:不要和期刊置氣

看到曹建軍的文章《地理學報》為何期刊？-此為拒投記，心裡真的是百味雜陳，感慨萬千，這兩天陸續收到4封拒稿信，理由都是主題不符，請改投他刊。當然不是4篇文章,是兩篇，一篇是中文的，一篇是外文的。中文的是我投的，投的是《科學學研究》，外文的是我的合作者投的，魯索，大名鼎鼎，一般人不敢拒他的稿子的。知道這篇文章難以被人立馬接受，所以，讓他投。但半年之類連續投了三次，其中一次投給Scientometrics，審了四個月，主編應該算是魯索的好朋友，魯索做國際計量學會主席的時候，他是學會的秘書或者說財務總監之類。所以，不好立馬拒絕，就送外審了。外審也說，如果不是魯索這個大牛，還有之前在informetrics上發表了相同論題的文章，他就說我們投錯刊了。後來我們又投了兩個兩個數學類刊，也被認為是主題不符，沒送外審，直接拒了，意見我附後面。

而中文的，是我寫的，投《科學學研究》之前，我心理是有些猶疑的，這猶疑不是覺得主題不符，而是因為這些年，我大多數寫英文文章，國內刊除了約稿，沒有主動投過國內刊，而僅有的兩次中文投稿，都發表在《科學學研究》上了，我怕人們說我是不是和《科學學研究》有關係，投關係稿，所以，其實是不想再投的。但想來這是主題最為接近的一個刊。我這篇文章是研究科學結構的，科學結構應該是科學學研究的主要部分，加之，之前和《科學學研究》有過很好的合作關係，當時，我還是一個攻讀博士的無名小卒的時候，就試著投了一次《科學學研究》，他們以極大的耐心幫助我完善和提高這個研究。這篇過程，我曾經寫過一篇博客，《科學學研究》發文記，瀏覽量超過一萬三千次了。而我這次寫中文文章，主要是因為我要基於這些研究，給大學的學科建設工作提出政策建議，自然用中文，更容易被人接受一些。

我在這裡要說的，不是《科學學研究》拒了我的稿子了，我還為其辯解。只是，學者學者，就是以研究為生的。而研究結果，總歸是要在期刊上發表的。不是A期刊，就是B期刊。從目前國內的情況來看，大多數拒稿，都不會給出詳盡的理由的。如果因為一次理由不充足或者審稿意見不完備的拒稿，就拒投此刊，估計國內就沒有可以投的刊物了。

但給期刊提提意見，幫助他們改善出刊環節，合理採納審稿意見，還是必要的。在實際生活中，在任何事情上，我們都要學會據理力爭，而不是置氣，弄得自己沒有生存之地。

比方下面是幾個外刊有關主題不符的拒稿信，中文的期刊如果能到這種程度，應該就能令人信服了。其實，期刊主題雖然有一定之規，但科學總是發展的，不會總局限於現在的主題，而是不斷產生新的主題，在有關新的主題還沒有相應的期刊創辦之前，期刊原有的格局應該是新的主題有一定的包容性。比方我的那篇外文文章，是當時魯索讓我做的博士論文的主題，現實Leo Egghe做了一個設想，然後交給魯索，恰好我開始做博士，就又交給我，我埋頭做了四五年，留下近200頁的手稿，放在那裡至今沒有發表。15年過後，去年撿拾起來，重新做。魯索拿給Egghe看的時候，Egghe都忘了他曾經有這個看法，去年STI會議上碰到Egghe,恰好我們這篇投給了Journal of informetrics.他是這個刊物的創辦人，剛剛退下來，交給了現任主編Ludo。他們兩個人在那裡談論這篇文章，說他如何從15年前的記憶里把這篇文章打撈出來……這篇文章審稿意見其實也說這篇文章和這個期刊主題不符，但審稿者說，我驗算了所有的公式，公式沒有錯誤，而且，文章邏輯推理沒有錯，結論也成立，他們不知道這篇文章和我們這個領域有何關係，但可能這本期刊是唯一能夠發表這篇文章的地方。所以，主編就接受了。這當然和通訊作者是前主編有關，但如果沒有關係，就不應該給新的研究論題一個發表的空間嗎？

我們這篇文章是測度網路的支配力的。之前沒有這方面的研究，數學不是很複雜，但設計很精巧，很有意思。我們一開始就不知道這篇文章適合那個刊物，我們只能一個一個地試，科學計量學界因為魯索這個大牛，曾考慮了，但我們最終也沒能將我們的結果bend our paper to bepublishable in this journal. 所以，我們只能試試數學刊了，數學刊也拒絕了，現在我們準備投社會數學方法的刊物，因為覺得社會學可能都支配力會感興趣吧，但Who knows？

Dear Dr.XX,

We have received the reports from our advisors on your manuscript, "Dynamic aspects of domination networks", which you submitted to Scientometrics.

Based on the advice received, I feel that your manuscript could be reconsidered for publication should you be prepared to incorporate major revisions. When preparing your revised manuscript, you are asked to carefully consider the reviewer comments which are below, and submit a list of responses to the comments.We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript by 29 Apr 2017

With kind regards,

Wolfgang Glänzel, PhD

Editor in Chief Scientometrics

COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR:

Reviewer #1: This is a highly technical paper on dynamic network restructuring, however without any clear aspect for or application in scientometrics. The word itself, or indeed any related words are not coming up in the paper. Nevertheless the topic is quite interesting and the ideas are relevant in themselves. The paper is also well structured and well written.

Only it has, in its current form, little to do with anything this journal is about, in my understanding. The main reason I am not tempted to say right away that this is just the wrong journal, that clearly there is a documented relationship, and even co-authorship with an eminent protagonist of scientometrics.My suggestions are straightforward then. An application in keyword networks or citation networks or anything with relevance to the field must be found to grant publication in this journal.

Besides, to also soften the inherently abstract treatment of the topic, I suggest to add an animation (as online supporting material made available via a link). Animations are wonderful tools for dealing with dynamic networks as they directly grasp the central element of dynamics, time. Tools exist for the scholarly presentation of animations of dynamic networks (eg. by Skye Bender-Moll and others). Even beyond, network mesasures for dominance can be directly represented as graph "colors" both in the visual and in the rigorous mathematical sense, and hence invite a treatment of animated colored networks - perhaps with even a still image inserted in the paper.

Finally, and perhaps more surprisingly, I can also imagine a strong connection with the application area of terrorist networksunderstood as workflows or "value chains", as in the work of Toth, N., Gulyás, L., Legendi, R. O., Duijn, P., Sloot, P. M., & Kampis, G. (2013). The importance of centralities in dark network value chains. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 222(6), 1413-1439. (Removing or inserting a key player etc. Not that this connection strengthens the scientometric potential of the paper.)In any case I strongly believe the authors should make a major effort to bend their paper to be publishable in this journal.Applied Mathematical Modelling主編很坦率地說出自己的決定

Dear Dr. XX,

We have now looked through your paper, prior to assigning referees. After careful consideration we have decided that we cannot pursue the review process and that we should reject the paper at this stage.

The key reason for the decision is that your paper does not clearly fall within the scope of this research journal, which focuses on the mathematical modelling of real-world problems in engineering, industrial and environmental systems.As such I formally release you to submit your work to a more appropriate journal. I know you will be disappointed by this response but I should nevertheless like to thank you for considering Applied Mathematical Modelling as a location for your work.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Johann (Hans) SienzEditor in

ChiefApplied Mathematical Modelling

Applied Mathematics and Computation很委婉地假借他人之口說出拒稿

Dear Dr. XX,

Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. You will see that they are advising against publication of your work. Therefore I must reject it. I append the reviewers' comments below.

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

Yours sincerely,

T.E. Simos

Editor-in-Chief Applied Mathematics and Computation

Reviewers' comments: Thank you for submitting the paper to AMC. Let underline that AMC is promoting papers which are a combination of both strong mathematical (theoretical) results and strong computational (numerical) results. Moreover, AMC is very selective (less than 8% of submissions are considered for possible publication). Unfortunately, we are not convinced that the contribution is strong enough for publication in AMC.> For further assistance, please visit our customer support site at Here you can search for solutions on a range of topics, find answers to frequently asked questions and learn more about EES via interactive tutorials. You will also find our 24/7 support contact details should you need any further assistance from one of our customer support representatives.

Thank you for submitting the paper to AMC.Let underline that AMC is promoting papers which are a combination of bothstrong mathematical (theoretical) results and strong computational (numerical)results. Moreover, AMC is very selective (less than 8% of submissions areconsidered for possible publication). Unfortunately, we are not convinced thatthe contribution is strong enough for publication in AMC.