最近投了一篇文章到某期刊上，好不容易送審意見回來了，結(jié)果兩個外審，一個意見是小修，一個是拒稿，編輯（和我老板關系還不錯）無情的拒了，請問如果按照外審意見修改還有重投的希望嗎？因為如果重投，可能老板感覺再聯(lián)系那個熟人編輯沒面子，因此最好是大概率能搞定時，這樣做意義才大一些，老板才愿意！
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
外審一的意見是小修接受，他先是把文章夸一番，之后就是給出了兩個可以改進的地方，主要就是加一個指標為了評估毒性，還有就是有一個實驗現(xiàn)象，她想了解一下有沒有可能是因為另一個小原因?qū)е碌�，補充一下可能更完整，這兩個都很容易解決。

外審二是拒稿，也是先大體評價了一下文章說很有趣，但是后面說文章也有大漏洞，主要就是一個機理的解釋，他覺得結(jié)論還需要再驗證，這個問題感覺很容易解決，因為我們有一些突變體，很容易回答。第二個問題是質(zhì)疑我們在文章中吹噓的應用潛能，然后覺得在我們文章中的應用的模型下很難讓人感覺到有“應用潛能”但倒是提供了一些改進的建議，用另外的模型說明應用前景也許可以（不得不說大牛的建議的確不錯，感覺真心對），這個估計也可以補。其余的問題是一些小問題，包括一些描述不到位的，還有一個他理解錯誤的地方（這個理解錯誤導致在4項指標打分中，有一項他覺得因為這個他認為錯的錯誤而原本是該給 high 的僅僅只有中等，另一個是應用性給了中等，其余都是high) 。

而以上這些建議個人覺得應該都是可以改的。但是編輯直接拒稿了。

編輯回信：
Dear xx,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to be considered for publication in xx and I hope that you and your family are staying healthy in this time. This decision was a tough one, as the referees, who are experts in XX, XX, and XX, and are generally big supporters of your work, are split and have serious reservations about the submission in its current form. Based on the attached reviewers’ comments and my own reading of the work, I regret to inform you that we are unable to accept your manuscript for publication and are offering transfer to XX, another top journal in our field.
The translational aspects of the work were questioned by both referees, with even the positive referee requesting additional animal experiments whereas the negative referee did not evaluate the results as having sufficient selectivity for potential therapeutic intervention. Moreover, they questioned a well-defined mechanism of action relative to your previous work (指的是毒性問題，還是應用性被質(zhì)疑）. I think this is an interesting chemical biology story, but at xx， we are limited to publishing 200 papers a year and have to cover all fields in that limited number, so each study has to garner a high bar of enthusiasm with external referees. For context, each editor is only accepting 2-3 submissions per month and we receive new submissions daily.
At xx we aim to cover the most significant findings, both in terms of novelty and broad relevance, spanning all areas. As fellow academics, we are cognizant of the time and effort to review and revise manuscripts, so papers that are unlikely to pass this high bar, although they may be of good quality, must be turned away. For this reason,  xx will likely reject a high proportion of articles submitted. This decision is not a judgment of the quality of the data or scholarship of the work, but merely reflects our desire to publish only the most influential research and allied fields. Although we regret that a positive recommendation cannot be made in this instance, we do welcome your future submissions to and support of XX.
However, xx is pleased to provide an opportunity to submit your manuscript to xx. The editors at xx encourage you to consider the recommendations received from xx. To have your manuscript files and information copied to a new submission for xx, please see the information below. The editors will evaluate your revised manuscript from a fresh perspective. Please note that submitting your manuscript to the xx does not guarantee acceptance.
Thank you again for your interest in xx. Again, I'm sorry that this current submission wasn't a good match for the journal, but I hope that you can see we give each manuscript serious consideration and try to give transparent feedback on how a decision is made and that you'll consider xx again in the future. We are also happy to receive presubmission inquiries as well. 返回小木蟲查看更多