发布时间：
审稿是编辑过程一个不可或缺的环节。审稿是披沙拣金的工作，是对科技论文价值发现的过程。在审稿中，要对科技论文的价值作出准确的判断，并不是轻而易举的事情。它要求审稿者既要具备深厚的学养，又要精晓专业的知识。但是，科技期刊的编辑，尤其是高校学报的编辑，往往要面对多种学科的论文，而编辑又不可能对众多的学科博学精通。这样，面对许多不熟悉学科的陌生的论文，审稿就显得捉襟见肘了。但是不是就因此而束手无策了呢？其实，任何一篇科技论文，都是内容和形式的统一。长期的写作实践，科技论文已形成了一定的格式和表达规范，科技论文内容的表达，总有其形式的特征。正如一匹马，如果是千里马，它总会在外形（五官、身躯、四肢、毛色等方面）上显现出千里马的特征一样，一篇有价值的科技论文，它的内容表现总要与规范的形式相统一。因此，从科技论文的摘要、引言、实验、讨论、结论、参考文献等部分的基本表现特征入手，可为编辑审稿提供一条有效的途径。《科技传播》杂志
无论是研究生博士学习期间，还是职称评定，论文发表投稿是必需的一步。今天就和大家聊一下论文投稿时的一系列疑问。
我的也是，第一次4个外审，后来又增加了3个
编辑审稿与专家审稿是一种主从关系:编辑审稿具有主体性，编辑是职业审稿人角色，是专家审稿人的选择者，是稿件刊用与否的决定者;专家审稿只具有从属性，审稿专家是编外审稿人角色，被动地接受所审稿件，主要对稿件内容作学术评价，没有稿件刊用权，只有有限的稿件否决权。编辑审稿和专家审稿的不同职业角色、作用和任务决定了编辑必须主导审稿的全过程。主导审稿是编辑的职责，编辑应提高专业学识水平，消除过分依赖专家的心理，发挥主体作用，主导稿件评审的全过程，否则，把稿件刊用的决定权完全托付给外审专家，自己反倒成了边缘人，忘记了编辑在审稿中的主体地位，放弃了一名编辑应该承担的义务，有违编辑的职责，无益于学术期刊的审稿工作。基于编辑主导的同行评议制度，才能双剑合壁，最大程度地发挥审稿的作用，只有这样，编辑才能把握审稿工作的主动权。
对于博士论文来说，其实外审的时间都差不多，通常在一周到两周之内，最主要的耗费时间的反而是在博士生自己的导师那里。
一般博士论文外省的时间都是每年的九月份时间还是很紧凑的
没交稿费，不会送去外审。地球科学进展，审稿费用：平均 175 元/篇；审稿速度： 平均 4 个月的审稿周期 ；投稿录用比例： 44% 版面费用：平均 1433 元/页 。
建议常跟编辑联系，以密切跟踪稿件状态。三个月了还没有意见，时间有点漫长了；而且按照现在的情况分析，还有的等呢。makunjida(站内联系TA)前面专家不审稿，换人了，也有可能意见不统一huashi59688(站内联系TA)电子学报的编辑们很不负责，我投了之后三个月都没送审，给那边打电话时答复说忘了送审了；之后两个月都没有审稿结果，之后打电话那边才答复说已经有结果了，稿件被拒了。建议你打电话催一下，说不定早就有结果了，只是不告诉你而已！Kingso(站内联系TA)我的审了八个月，中间也加过一个审稿人，可能是觉得前面的审稿意见太简单吧（只有一句话）。还好后来意见挺好的。接收了。Kingso(站内联系TA)我的审了八个月，中间也加过一个审稿人，可能是觉得前面的审稿意见太简单吧（只有一句话）。还好后来意见挺好的。接收了。barney2010(站内联系TA)至今还是两个空意见呀前面_youwo(站内联系TA)最近想投一篇文章，赶时间是不是投电子学报不好啊
有时候审稿意见没有发给作者，有可能是外审专家拒审
我的也是，第一次4个外审，后来又增加了3个
王应宽Wang Yingkuan2011-07-23Beijing, China因为同时在运作3本国际英文刊（IJABE, IAEJ, CIGR Journal），论文同行评审的专家来自世界各地。每次收到的评审意见千差万别，而且不同国家或地区的专家的评审意见呈现一定的规律性，随即不由得做些比较。比较得出的基本结论是：欧美国家专家的评审意见详尽具有更大参考价值，台湾地区的同行评审专家次之，大陆专家的评审意见最为简省。文后附上几篇评审意见（所列大陆专家评审意见还是相对较好的），看看便知，一目了然。我曾与编辑同行讨论关于国内专家审稿的问题。共同的见解是，一线一流的专家基本不审稿。若应邀审稿，要么直接拒审，要么敷衍几句了事；比较认真的专家大都让其所指导的研究生代为评审论文。不论让谁审，最后的评审意见与国外专家的评审相比总不令人满意，存在较大的差距。国外专家评审论文大都是义务劳动，没有任何报酬。但专家们认为自己作为科研人员是科学共同体中的一分子，有义务担任同行专家为他人研究成果的学术质量把关。自己为别人的论文评审把关付出了智慧和劳动，别人也会为自己的研究和论文评审把关，也会付出相应的劳动。专家之间相互协作，相互帮助，虽然没有评审报酬，但大家都觉得平等。而且，国外的专家大都言行一致，故能认真地做好每一篇文章的评审工作。有的评审意见详尽的令人赞叹、钦佩和感动。因此，大家看到他们的评审意见都非常详尽而具有参考价值。而国内的专家评审论文为何大都仓促应付，三言两语，或言之无物，或毫无参考价值？主要原因是一线一流的专家都太“忙”，以至忙得都没时间做学术了。据我从事学术期刊工作十多年的经历，不论评审中文文章还是英文文章，国内专家评审意见普遍简单，评审的质量不高，不但看不出有改观的迹象，还有进一步恶化的趋势。文章中存在的很多的问题，专家审后没有看出来或没有指出来。如果直接发表，错误或疏漏太多影响论文的质量和期刊的声誉。在外审专家靠不住时，就要依靠内审做些完善和提高。如果外审专家把不好关，编辑部又无能力通过内审把关，发表出来的论文的质量也就可想而知了。是否国内专家不擅长评审论文呢？非也。据了解，许多国内专家被国外知名期刊邀请审稿时，他们非常积极认真地评审论文，并在规定时间返回颇有水准的评审意见。据说他们也能做得与欧美国际同行专家一样好。可见，国内专家评不好国内期刊论文不是水平问题，而是态度问题，“时间”问题，或者有其他方面的原因。同行评审是学术期刊论文质量把关的重要途径。如果大家都不在乎，把严肃认真的“盲审”变成“瞎审”，学术危矣！国内期刊请国内专家评审论文大都支付审稿费的。当然，限于各期刊的经济困难，审稿费报酬普遍都不高。因此，同行专家大都不很在乎那点可怜的审稿费。如果评审不好文章会影响专家的声誉和公信度。国内特别是大陆的专家既不在乎钱，也不在乎自己的声誉，不知道他们究竟在乎啥？中国是雷锋诞生的国度，按理说，当志愿者做公益应该很有基础。但在学术圈，就拿国内外同行专家无私奉献评审论文作比较，中国的同行专家做的还很不够，需要好好向国际同行学习。附：CIGR Journal栏目主编加拿大专家对一篇退稿文章的评审意见June 27, 2011Dear P H L L:Re: CIGR Manuscript 1911 EFFECTS OF TRACTOR INFLATION PRESSURE AND TRAFFIC ON SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIESAs CIGR section editor, I have conducted a preliminary review of the above The manuscript addresses a significant engineering problem in agricultural crop production, and as such, the subject matter is of interest to CIGRHowever, the manuscript is deficient in several scientific The decision is to decline the manuscript without peer My preliminary review is attached to the end of this Please note that the preliminary review is by no means a comprehensive The manuscript is released, and you are free to submit it for publication in another Thank you for considering CIGR for publication of your work and I wish you success in getting your work SincerelyPE, PD,CIGR Section III editor,Research Scientist, Agricultural Engineering,Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,Section Editor ReviewTitle: EFFECTS OF TRACTOR INFLATION PRESSURE AND TRAFFIC ON SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIESCIGR # 1911Authors:H L L et June 27, 2011General:The manuscript addresses soil compaction by multiple passes with agricultural machinery which is a timely topic and of importance to sustainable agricultural There are numerous grammatical errors although the meaning is generally It is strongly recommended that the authors seek the assistance of someone well versed in English to help with the The manuscript is not acceptable in its present It needs a lot of The biggest problem with the manuscript is that key pieces of information are not given, and that the data analysis is not Some of the major deficiencies are listed below although this is by no means an exhaustive Soil It is well known that soil characteristics have a huge influence on soil The only description given is that the soil was a sandy Things like soil series, percent sand, silt and clay, soil organic matter all influence compaction and need to be Tractor specifications: Total tractor weight, tractor axle (or wheel) weights, are critical pieces of information required for compaction studies, but they are not Tire pressure was given, but no information was given on whether these pressures were the same for front and rear Often, tractor manufacturers recommend different pressures for front and rear tires, particularly on tractors with different sizes of front and rear Slip was measured, but there was no mention made of whether the tractor was free wheeling (no implement draft) or whether it was pulling a The drawbar load on a tractor has a huge effect on wheel slip, and must be It was mentioned that a 4WD tractor was used, and different tire sizes were given for front and rear tires which implies that it was a front wheel It needs to be specified whether or not the front wheel drive was Results: A randomized complete block statistical design with three replicates was However, the results are given in a series of tables with simple means with no statistical The results need to be subjected to appropriate statistical analysis, ANOVA or multiple regression analysis, and appropriate post hoc tests applied to determine which means are statistically different from each The experimental design employed lends itself to standard statistical analysis of the Graphs should be used when appropriate to help illustrate the data and the Table 1, 2 and 3 and Cone index has wrong Cone index is normally given in MPa or kPAlso, the values for cone index are much lower than normally Section 3It is not necessary to list all of the equipment used such as oven, air compressor, All you need to say is that samples were oven dried at 105�0�2 C for soil moisture Things like air compressor and pressure gauge are every day shop equipment, are understood to be necessary for any type of experiment where inflation pressures are However, things like the penetrometer, and shear vane meter should be These are specialized pieces of equipment and their performance can affect the Section Need to provide information on which soil cone penetrometer you Also, how many penetrometer measurements per plot per pass?3)In Figure 4, the text “USB Connection” was overlapped by the 4)In Figure 4, the line with the “Information Collection” is missing an 5)In Figure 7, the text “field identifying number” was covered by the 6)In Figure 8, some texts are placed out of the 7)Please use consistent fonts in figures throughout the Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor/Editor-in-chiefI recommend the authors should use consistent fonts throughout the The paper cannot be accepted in its present 中国大陆专家1评审论文意见Section III: CommentsThis section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a Use all the space you General Comments:This paper assess the O2 consumption rate and the CO2 evolution rate in tomato pomace treated with Pleurotus ostreatus without and with Mn to determine if peak colonization rate (for heightened delignification) was delayed by Generally speaking, the author’s work is useful and The author gives a brief introduction to the related work and compares his ideas to The theoretical analysis of this article is In all, this manuscript has good novelty and strong technical strength, I’m looking forward the results of further investigations on this Specific comments:In Table 1, notes are not enough in this In the Results and Discussion, results have been detailed explained, but some theoretical analysis of the experimental data are not Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division EditorI hope the paper will be published to guide more Reviewers’ information (Blind to Authors)中国大陆专家2评审论文意见(相对而言属于国内专家评审较为认真仔细的了)Section III: CommentsThis section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a Use all the space you General Comments:Variable Spray will play an important role in saving resources, protecting environment, raising quality of agricultural The purpose of this paper is to evaluate PWM-based continuous variable spray in terms of spray distribution pattern, spray droplet size, and spray angle for flat-fan, hollow-cone and solid-cone The test design, results, analysis and conclusion are After re-review, this paper may be published, I Specific comments:(1)I have read a paper named “Variable rate Continuous Spray Equipment Based on PWM Technology and Its Spray Characteristics”, which was published in Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2008, 39 (6): 77-80 (in Chinese)”(see the attachment), I think that is a previous study work of the If that is correct, I suggest the author adding that paper in the references of this And then, the contents which have been described in the previous paper can be deleted from this (2)In the abstract “The sensitivities of the spray angles to flow-rate are 8254o/%、6681o/%、5761o/% respectively for flat-fan, the hollow-cone and the solid-cone nozzles” In English, without the symbol “、”(3)The numerical data in the conclusion are not the same as those in the abstract”Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division EditorReviewers’ information (Blind to Authors)中国大陆专家3评审论文意见Section III: CommentsThis section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a Use all the space you General Comments:This paper is more important, but it still needs major revision requiring re-Specific comments:Revision suggestions of this paper: The study results and conclusions should be clarified in It should be described clearly about the data and size of NACA0015 airfoil which was selected in the numerical simulation in section It should be described clearly about the specific quantitative conditions of icing in section This paper is required re-review after Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor
外审专家通常有3-4位不等，这些专家都是本专业内的学者或教授，外审专家精通本专业领域内的相关研究，所以对文章中涉及专业的内容可以做出精准判断，这一点是杂志社编辑无法达到的，所以外审需要由这些专家来完成，专家有期刊指定的，也有需要作者自己进行推荐的。