文章被拒后的辩驳!

无水1324

如题，两篇文章一个修改，一个直接被拒了，很是不爽。对referee的意见不满(不服)，决定写信去辩驳一番，这样有什么结果呢?

在网上找了一下又这样的先例，一个比较好的模板，发上来共享一下，希望出现这样遭遇的人们多交流。:@L :'(

论文被拒，第一个感觉就是灰心沮丧。我个人曾经有过三次不大不小的论文别拒的经历，情况大致有三种：第一种就是审稿人认为论文质量有问题，直接拒稿，大致就是说目前的工作与以前的工作没有太大的创新点；第二种就是冠冕堂皇的说是论文的内容与刊物发表论文的范围不符（有时确存在这样的情况，但大多数情况就是审稿人对该工作不感兴趣，找一个理由拒罢了）；第三种情况就是碰到了与你方向有相似（人家可能正在做）的审稿人，处于私人恩怨拒稿。第一种情况无可厚非，发表论文就是需要有创新点，没有就是凑数的东西，不值得发表；而第二种情况除了运气不好，碰到不负责任的审稿人外，到也可以接受；但第三种情况就实属不应该了，科学是需要公正性的，不能掺杂有个人情绪。所以，个人认为，对于第二、三情况，我们应该勇敢维护自己的劳动成果，给编辑写信进行辩驳。
今年7月份，我写的一篇论文（学生的工作，我是第二作者）被涂层领域一著名期刊拒了，虽不是通讯作者，但看了审稿人意见后非常生气（属于第三种情况），写了一篇很长的信给编辑对审稿人的个人水平及人品进行了指责，后来编辑看后表示对我的理解，并回复让我们重投论文（因为上次投的已经形成决议了），他会在一个月内给出最终结果，后来经过我和学生详细讨论，把论文内容进行大幅度改善（主要是讨论部分）重投出去，两个星期后论文被接收。从这件事情上，让我对论文投稿又有了一些新的认识，下面把编辑来信（三次）和我的回信贴出来，和大家交流，欢迎提供宝贵意见。

第一次编辑的拒稿信：

Dear ***,

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.

For your guidance, I append the reviewers' comments below.

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

Yours sincerely,

***
Editor
***

Reviewers' comments:


Reviewer #1:
Generally, the work is unique but it is not acceptable due to incomplete explanation and routine writing for only publication.

In Fig. 1. (b), at the magnification x500, the original scale bar was 50 microns in the photo. But authors made a new scale bar which is 20 microns. This is kind of fraud!!!!
English Grammar and style are not satisfied.
My conclusion is that any manuscript from the authors should not be published in this journal.

我的回复：
Dear Editor***

Thank you for your kind attention to consider our work in***. I am terribly sorry for such a terrible conclusion made by the reviewer because of our minor fault about the scale bar in Fig. 1. So, I should give a rebuttal against the comments of the reviewer. I have not been persuaded and I consider the comments are unreasonable and unfair for our work.
I don’t know why the reviewer gave such nasty comments and made a so terrible conclusion about our future work. I doubt whether he has read our manuscript carefully and completely or not.
In Fig.1(b), it is a minor mistake about the scale bar made by authors. I debt that it is very easy to remove the original one in the picture by means of some advanced photo editor softwares if we want. Does the reviewer think we are attempting to cheat the readers using such an obvious mistake which everybody can find, and leaving the original one to make him think it is a “fraud” easily? Why should we do that? If the reviewer read our manuscript carefully and completely, he would not give the unreasonable assessment that “This is a kind of fraud”. In our manuscript, we have never talked about the influence of the size of *** although we consider the *** do influence the ***(与尺寸相异的其它方面) of our ***. It is absolutely unnecessary for us to make this “fraud”. Please kindly judge why we made the “fraud” to make readers unhappy, and us in trouble. Why did the reviewer consider this minor mistake as an unpardonable “fraud” without thinking more about it carefully?
The reviewer said that “the work is unique”. How did he give this comment without any reasons? Since it is unique, why did he reject our work only using the simple reasons of “incomplete explanation” and “routine writing”? We try out best to explain our results. It may be incomplete because of our limitations of corresponding knowledge. But we are eager to improve and perfect it with the help from the reviewers and editors. We are not English native speakers and do realize that our English in this manuscript is not perfect. But, technique paper is different from essay. We consider that it is enough for English grammar or style in technique paper if it can make readers understand our idea and work. Of course, we also can ask help from some English writing companies to improve our English expressions. Thus, we think it is unfair that the reviewer rejected our work only using these unimpressive excuses. It is imprudent to give his conclusion “any manuscript from the authors should not be published in this journal” according to his unfair and irresponsible judgment that Fig.1(b) is “a kind of fraud”.
As an eligible reviewer of the famous journal, he should assess the manuscript from any authors righteously and carefully. He should give reasonable and convictive evidences for his comments. The reviewer should show his understanding to the work that he is reviewing.
In short, we could not accept the comments given by the reviewer #1, and hope that he can withdraw his unjustified conclusions for our present and future work. We are pleased if the editor can justify our rebuttals.
Thank you for your patience and kind attention.
May you have a nice day!

Best Regards
Yours Sincerely
****

编辑的回信Dear***
I understand your explanation that you made a simple mistake in Fig. 1b. If you wish to submit your revised paper, I will send it to another reviewer. In this case, however, your paper is considered to be new submission because once decision of rejection is reported using the Elsevier on-line system, the paper is removed from the web system. If you submit the revised version of your paper, I will handle it immediately in order to make a final decision hopefully in a month. I am very sorry again for reporting you the previous decision.
I am looking forward to receiving your revised paper.
With kindest regards;
***

收到的论文接收信（投稿两周）
Dear ***,

I am pleased to confirm that your paper "The ***" has been accepted for publication in ***.

Comments from the Editor and Reviewers can be found below.

Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.

With kind regards,

***
Editor
***

Comments from the Editors and Reviewers:

The present paper reports ***. The authors have shown that ***. The paper contains interesting results and discussion worth for publication in ***. Therefore, I recommend the publication of the present paper as is.

转自：http://www.ifstar.net/bbs/simple/index.php?t7599371.html

huright

申诉应该是可以的。我想主要是针对你被拒的理由来写，而不要感情用事随意扩大化。不可否认审稿人带有感情 #se彩。正因为这样我们才更应该心平气和的看待被拒情况。

[ 本帖最后由 无水1324 于 2008-3-4 14:35 编辑 ]

无水1324

是的，我懂你的意思，7个月了得到这样的消息不爽是肯定的，但是那个审稿人给的意见确实不怎么样，所以我写信去声明辩驳一下。。
还有我没有将事情扩大化哈:lol

eight

原帖由 无水1324 于 2008-3-4 14:37 发表

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

是的，我懂你的意思，7个月了得到这样的消息不爽是肯定的，但是那个审稿人给的意见确实不怎么样，所以我写信去声明辩驳一下。。
还有我没有将事情扩大化哈:lol

坚持一下吧：

我有个工作是2006年前1-2月做的，3月投了稿后，4月收到回复被拒，5月再投另外的杂志，11月份再被拒。后来整理成英文，2007年5月重新投了会议，被接受，现在还被推荐到国外的杂志呢

另外一个工具2006年9-12月在北京做的，回来之前投了稿，1月底收到回复要修改，4月份重新送回去，结果还是被拒，直到现在还在修改中.....

无水1324

谢谢，我知道坚持，问题是审稿人的意见稿得我很莫名其妙的

咕噜噜

我的论文正在退修中，明天打算发过去修改稿，不知道结果会如何
有时候有些话是那高人的确是不负责任的，但大多数人还是挺好得，能提出一些不错的意见和建议

无水1324

确实，还有一些杂志，给退稿，但是没有任何退稿的意见，就是两字“退稿”，我不知道这些编辑是怎么想的

无水1324

哈哈，收到了编辑的回信，还是一样郁闷，决定改投了。:'(