稿件初審審什么？

1、稿件初審審什么？ How to make initial review? 很多期刊的稿件初審都是由編輯部的人員來做，投稿到 Journal of Mountain Science 的文章大部分由數(shù)十位相應(yīng) 學(xué)科方向的編委和科學(xué)編輯做初審，目的是從大量的投稿中 篩選出真正有價值的文章，再送同行外審，以便盡可能地減 少后期的無效勞動。然而，從返回的初審意見來看，少部分 初審意見并不是很盡人意 : 有的一句話不寫，直接推薦送同 行外審（即便是文章 very excellent, 我也希望初審專家能夠 讓我知道這一點(diǎn)） ; 有的只有一句話，文章無創(chuàng)新性，或者文 章寫作很差（我希望能夠看到具體的意見）

2、。 初審雖然不同于同行外審，不一定要給出非常具體、非常詳 細(xì)的意見，如果是退稿或者是請作者，也得讓作者明白自己 的文章的不足在哪里，以便能夠進(jìn)一步改進(jìn)。 個人認(rèn)為，初審應(yīng)從以下幾個方面入手： 1. 稿件是否符合期刊的刊稿范圍： 如果不是，提出具體意見： This manuscript is outside the scope of the journal. The author is suggested to submit this article to these journalsThis manuscript falls with the scope of the journal. How

3、ever the study results only can be used to guide local practice, it is more suitible for a local journal insttead of the international journal. 2. 研究是否有意義：從題目和摘要快速了解文章的研究內(nèi)容 是否有新意。 3. 稿件是否符合期刊的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)規(guī)范：如果不符合期刊的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)規(guī) 范，請作者按照期刊的格式重新撰寫。 This manuscript didnot follow the journals guidelines in Figure preparati

4、on, literation citation, reference format, Please refer to the guidelines at http:/ 4. 數(shù)據(jù)是否充分：做了哪些試驗，得到了什么樣的結(jié)果，通 過閱讀題目、摘要、方法、結(jié)果、結(jié)論，看提供的數(shù)據(jù)是否 能夠充分說明文章要達(dá)到的目的。 5. 方法是否清楚明了： 作者采用什么方法， 怎樣得到的結(jié)果。 如果作者在這部分有意疏忽，則有可能被退稿。 6. 圖表：圖表的呈現(xiàn)是否恰當(dāng)、 美觀。有些文章沒有側(cè)重點(diǎn)， 一下放幾十個圖 ,有些文章圖片質(zhì)量差， 讓人一看心里就不舒 服。即使文章內(nèi)容不錯，如果圖的質(zhì)量較差，我們會要求作 者修

5、改后再投。 7. 寫作問題：文字是否流暢、邏輯清晰，有些初學(xué)寫作科技 論文的作者往往東拼西湊，感覺思維跳躍，前后銜接不上。 另外，文章中出現(xiàn)大量的語法問題和拼寫錯誤往往直接導(dǎo)致 一篇立即被退稿。 8. 文獻(xiàn)引用： 文獻(xiàn)引用最能看出一個作者 的功底和認(rèn)真程度。是否只引用本國文獻(xiàn)？是否遺漏重要的 學(xué)術(shù)論著？是否大部分抄襲某篇已發(fā)表的文章的文獻(xiàn)？最 后這一條通過我們期刊的稿件系統(tǒng)中嵌入的 Crosscheck 防 抄襲系統(tǒng)可以檢測出來。下面附一篇一位海外科學(xué)編輯的初 審意見以供參考： There is no doubt that the authors have undertaken signifi

6、cant field and desk based work to advance knowledge, and herein should be congratulated for their endeavour. However major revisions are recommended to generate a deeper and better articulated product in order that the wider community can engage with this: 1. Linkage to the Mountain arena, in order

7、to better align with the journal purpose. Whilst the study regions have mountains and adjoining areas, the link is diffuse as written in the manuscript. A basic example of this- figure 1- doesnt show mountain locations written in the text 2. English language- there are mis-spellings, missing words a

8、nd fragmentary sentences are common 3. Whilst it does cite literature outside the Chinese academic context, it doesnt fully utilise the rich international literature on gully form, dynamics and management. It would be stronger for this. Further how can this research add to gully management solutions

9、 outside the study region- i.e. transference of knowledge/ tools? 4. Figures- text too small, and complex colour schemes 5. Tables- some poor formatting, and components (e.g. indices not explained) 6. Text generally- is prone to description/ listing, would benefit from greater quantification and exp

10、lanation. Definition of the core focus black soil is vague- and this is central to this work. 7. Jump between method and results- the manuscript makes reference to array of analytical techniques, but jumps to result summaries. 8. Field sampling strategies- whilst very extensive, could explain justify further 9. Aims and objectives- are a little generic, could be more exact 10. Table 2- suggests all numbers are sums- this is not so, so and evolved structure would help 11. Section 2- explain top down