最近投了一篇文章到某期刊上，好不容易送審意見(jiàn)回來(lái)了，結(jié)果兩個(gè)外審，一個(gè)意見(jiàn)是小修，一個(gè)是拒稿，編輯（和我老板關(guān)系還不錯(cuò)）無(wú)情的拒了，請(qǐng)問(wèn)如果按照外審意見(jiàn)修改還有重投的希望嗎？因?yàn)槿绻�重投，可能老板感覺(jué)再聯(lián)系那個(gè)熟人編輯沒(méi)面子，因此最好是大概率能搞定時(shí)，這樣做意義才大一些，老板才愿意！
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
外審一的意見(jiàn)是小修接受，他先是把文章夸一番，之后就是給出了兩個(gè)可以改進(jìn)的地方，主要就是加一個(gè)指標(biāo)為了評(píng)估毒性，還有就是有一個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)現(xiàn)象，她想了解一下有沒(méi)有可能是因?yàn)榱硪粋�(gè)小原因?qū)е碌�，補(bǔ)充一下可能更完整，這兩個(gè)都很容易解決。

外審二是拒稿，也是先大體評(píng)價(jià)了一下文章說(shuō)很有趣，但是后面說(shuō)文章也有大漏洞，主要就是一個(gè)機(jī)理的解釋，他覺(jué)得結(jié)論還需要再驗(yàn)證，這個(gè)問(wèn)題感覺(jué)很容易解決，因?yàn)槲覀冇幸恍┩蛔凅w，很容易回答。第二個(gè)問(wèn)題是質(zhì)疑我們?cè)谖恼轮写祰u的應(yīng)用潛能，然后覺(jué)得在我們文章中的應(yīng)用的模型下很難讓人感覺(jué)到有“應(yīng)用潛能”但倒是提供了一些改進(jìn)的建議，用另外的模型說(shuō)明應(yīng)用前景也許可以（不得不說(shuō)大牛的建議的確不錯(cuò)，感覺(jué)真心對(duì)），這個(gè)估計(jì)也可以補(bǔ)。其余的問(wèn)題是一些小問(wèn)題，包括一些描述不到位的，還有一個(gè)他理解錯(cuò)誤的地方（這個(gè)理解錯(cuò)誤導(dǎo)致在4項(xiàng)指標(biāo)打分中，有一項(xiàng)他覺(jué)得因?yàn)檫@個(gè)他認(rèn)為錯(cuò)的錯(cuò)誤而原本是該給 high 的僅僅只有中等，另一個(gè)是應(yīng)用性給了中等，其余都是high) 。

而以上這些建議個(gè)人覺(jué)得應(yīng)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(wèn)題，還是應(yīng)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(chóng)查看更多