《SCI 投稿经历(11页).doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《SCI 投稿经历(11页).doc（11页珍藏版）》请在taowenge.com淘文阁网|工程机械CAD图纸|机械工程制图|CAD装配图下载|SolidWorks_CaTia_CAD_UG_PROE_设计图分享下载上搜索。
1、-SCI 投稿经历-第 11 页今天收到邮件，我的一篇Journal of Applied Physics 论文已被接收，心情当时还是有点激动。虽然这个杂志的影响因子不是很高，大概2.2左右吧，这也不是我的第一篇SCI论文，但回想这一年发文章的坎坎坷坷，以及亲身经历的四川大地震，心里还是有很多的感触。这篇论文是我在2008年二月份完成的最初稿，于二月九号投到Physics Letters A上，在经历了Technical check，with editor，under review后，于三月二十号收到编辑的决定信，当时就傻了拒稿！受打击了。下面是编辑的信以及审稿意见，我想把它贴出来与虫友们分享
2、，一方面我认为，通过看审稿人的意见，可以帮助大家更好地写作，提高自己的科研水平和能力，另一方面也是答谢小木虫上很多无私的虫友们，是他们将自己的投稿经历贴在网上，与大家分享，我想我没有理由不拿出来哈！同时，也希望小木虫的虫子们能继续发扬这种精神，大家同舟共济，共同提高！好了，废话说了一大堆，不说了，下面是Physics Letters A 的审稿意见：Ms. Ref. No.:Title: Physics Letters ADear professor ,Reviewers comments on your work have now been received.You will see tha
3、t 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,（编辑名）EditorPhysics Letters AReviewers comments:Reviewer #2: Manuscript The authors pr
4、esent results of the 3D electron potential ofa gated quantum point contact in a AlGaAs/GaAs heterostructure.In contrast to earlier studies, it is now possible to derive thepotential landshape without any adjustable parameter. The resultsstill agree with earlier investigations using simpler phenomeno
5、logicalmodels. Since the used nextnano3 program is available since acouple of years, I wonder why this has not been done earlier.The authors emphasize an application of their results. Havingthe complete potential landshape might help, in the future,to better understand the quantized acoustoelectric
6、current inSETSAW devices and to improve their performance.However, the authors do not show or even discuss how this canbe achieved. Therefore I believe that in the present form the paperis not suitable for publication.The authors should consider the following suggestions, questions,and remarks.1) Pa
7、ge 1, first paragraph. due to the negatively applied gate voltage . It is the SAWthat drives the electrons through the contact, not the gate voltage.Maybe replace this sentence by ., depending on the applied gatevoltage.2) Page 3, paragraph starting with Generally, the quantized . with fixed x = 105
8、0 nm and . Skip the .0. One could addthat this is exactly at the center of the device.3) At the end of the same paragraph is . once the bias is below .Should this not be the gate instead of the bias voltage?4) Page 4, paragraph starting with As we know, in the . To be different from previous calcula
9、tions . replace by. In contrast to previous calculations .5) The strongly different behaviour above and below the pinch-offvoltage is not obvious for the non-experts. All curves look moreor less the same. One could, for example, add another figure, orinsert, to show the potential height versus gate
10、voltage.6) How do these theoretical results of potential height versus gatevoltage compare with experiments? There exists at least onereport to determine the potential height of quantum-point contactsbelow pinch-off as function of gate voltage (Gloos et al., Phys.Rev. B 73, 125326 (2006). Possibly,
11、one could also compare thepresent data with 3D simulations of quantum dots (Vasileska et al.,Semicond. Sci. Technol. 13, A37 (1998).7) Figure 1，It would be better to mark the distance between the two metal gatesas the relevant parameter, and not the size of one gate.8) Figure 3The numbering of the t
12、wo density axes looks rather odd. Could it notbe done with integers, like 3 instead of 3.2 or 3.0?9) Figure 5 (b)Should there not be an anomaly or kink in the potential near the Fermilevel?在仔细读了审稿人的意见后，我觉得审稿人提出的5）和6)意见非常好，后来自己想想，决定把文章来个彻底的修改。1. 改动文章的英语，审稿人提出了几个英语的语法。这个很容易改。2. 改动文章的结构。换了很多图。因为我们做的是实验
13、和理论计算的结合。首先，我加了实验。把我们实验当中照的有关样品的结构补充到了文章当中，比如分裂栅的结构，叉指的结构等等。3. 把我们理论计算得到的在二维电子气中的势垒高度和我们的实验做了对比，遗憾的是我们的实验当时只做了三条曲线，后面的审稿意见就提出来了，这点后面再说。也就是满足了审稿意见6）。然后把计算的势垒高度画成与分裂栅电压的关系，满足了审稿意见5）4. 加了理论计算声电电流。这个在PLA稿中没有，我们的计算所用到的势场是我们自己计算得到的，而不是用简单的解析表达式的形式。这个修改可是个相当漫长的过程，期间我们经历了人生一辈子都不会忘记的5.12四川汶川大地震。受地震的影响，文章的修改拖
14、了三四个月。改完之后，由于自我感觉良好，所以胆子也大起来了，于是就投到了Physical Review B中的Rapid Communications板块，很快编辑就回信了，客气地说我的文章太长了，然后建议我修改后作为regular paper 投Physical Review B。这里我还是把编辑的信贴出来与大家分享。Dear Dr. ,We acknowledge the receipt of the above manuscript submitted tothe Rapid Communications section of Physical Review B.We have exam
15、ined your manuscript and it appears to be quite focusedon application and material science. Therefore, a more detailedletter as to what new and significant physics is presented in yourmanuscript and why Physical Review B is the most appropriate journalfor your manuscript would be very helpful.Please
16、 note that in doing a preliminary character count, we havefound that your manuscript is too long for the short paper sectionsof our journal. In view of this and the above, we feel that itwill be more productive if we consider this as a regular articlewhen we receive a persuasive response to the abov
17、e concern. You mayalso wish to revise your manuscript so that the new and significantphysics is better highlighted. In addition, please expand it intoa regular article format (e.g. by adding section headings) and weencourage you to add any material our readership may benefit fromsince no length limi
18、t applies.We will hold your manuscript in our office until we receive yourresponse.Yours sincerely,Senior Assistant EditorPhysical Review BEmail: prbridge.aps.orgFax: 631-591-4141http:/prb.aps.org/Physics - spotlighting exceptional research: http:/physics.aps.org/PRL Celebrates 50 Years: http:/prl.a
19、ps.org/50years/PRB Editors Suggestions: http:/prb.aps.org/#suggestionsLENGTH CHECK DATA (New 02/07)Manuscript No. BWR1056 First Author GuoFigure Label Width Height Picas Percent Cols Total Lines1 1 37 34 20 0.54 1.0 202 2 24 21 15 0.62 1.0 153 3 30 21 15 0.50 1.0 114 4 24 40 15 0.62 1.0 275 5 25 20
20、15 0.60 1.0 136 6 25 19 15 0.60 1.0 127 7 24 18 15 0.62 1.0 12LINE COUNTS Text lines 381 (Includes title, abstract, byline, pacs receipt date, text, acknowledgment, captions, and, references.) Equations 30 Tables 0 Figures 110 TOTAL 521 (Maximum length is 480)Author to supply:_ Abstract of no more t
21、han 600 characters including spaces._ Original Figure(s) _ with _ finer and/or larger lettering to prevent its filling in when figure is reduced. Minimum lettering size for the enclosed figures is _.COMMENTS:Manuscript: NoneTables and captions: NoneFigures: None=FORMS:=Please see the following forms
22、:http:/forms.aps.org/author/lengthguide-pr.pdf Length Guidelines for: Physical Review当时觉得编辑这么说了，感觉还是挺有希望的，于是快马加鞭修改，之后就投出去了。下面是论文的处理过程09Dec08 Editorial decision and/or referee comments sent to author13Oct08 08Dec08 Review request to referee; editor concludes response unlikely13Oct08 08Dec08 Review re
23、quest to referee; report received04Nov08 Reminder to referee others sent (not shown) at 1-2 week intervals04Nov08 Reminder to referee others sent (not shown) at 1-2 week intervals13Oct08 18Oct08 Review request to referee; report received07Oct08 08Oct08 Correspondence sent to author; response receive
24、d06Oct08 Correspondence (miscellaneous) sent to author10Sep08 06Oct08 Correspondence sent to author; response received24Sep08 25Sep08 Correspondence (miscellaneous) sent to author; response rcvd10Sep08 Acknowledgment sent to author08Sep08 Correspondence (miscellaneous) sent to author大概历时三个月收到审稿意见。判决
25、结果拒！有一次败了！当时心情十分沮丧。审稿意见如下：Dear Dr. ,The above manuscript has been reviewed by two of our referees.Comments from the reports are enclosed.We regret that in view of these comments we cannot accept the paperfor publication in the Physical Review.Yours sincerely,Assistant EditorPhysical Review BEmail: p
26、rbridge.aps.orgFax: 631-591-4141http:/prb.aps.org/Physics - spotlighting exceptional research: http:/physics.aps.org/PRL Celebrates 50 Years: http:/prl.aps.org/50years/PRB Editors Suggestions: http:/prb.aps.org/#suggestions-Report of the First Referee /-The paper aims at the numerical solution of th
27、e set of Schroedingerand Poisson equations for a split-gate structure and subsequentapplication of the results to calculation of quantizedacoustoelectric current.The paper is sound and well written. However, in my view, it does notcontain enough new physics to warrant its publication in the Physical
28、Review. Since the work seems to be useful to people involved inoptimizing standards of electrical current I recommend to resubmit thepaper to a journal more specialized on applications, such as theJournal of Applied Physics.-Report of the Second Referee - /-The subject of the paper is an interesting
29、 one, although the focus ofthe community has shifted away from it in the meantime. Neverthelessthe paper would be worth publishing if it gave better evidence in theinteresting electron transport mechanism prevailing in this effect.Specifically the authors present numerical results for the potentiali
30、n a SAW driven split-gate induced small channel. They claimin the abstract that the potential barrier heights calculatedin the closed-channel-regime agree well with the experiment weperformed. To my understanding they (implicitly) claim that theirnumerical method provides better understanding of the
31、 SETSAW effectand that it should allow for a better design of such devices.However, they do not give any experimental result to support theirclaim. The quantitative results of the numerical calculationscould prove their superiority by comparison with experimentalresult obtained from correspondingly
32、tailored devices, but theauthors only repeat general statements like .agrees very wellwith experiment., without presenting experiments. Without specificcomparisons the reader (if he knows the literature well) just learnsthat there is a kind of qualitative agreement. But such qualitative,and even sem
33、i-quantitative, agreement has been obtained before withsimpler phenomenological ansatz like potential distributions. Thepresent paper reaches similar conclusions as previous work but neverdemonstrates where the numerical calculations are more precise orprovide better understanding of the physics.The
34、 style of the paper is not appropriate and should be revised bya native English speaker. I recommend to reject the paper.不过沮丧归沮丧，生活还得继续，继续改投吧，好在第一个审稿人给我指明了一条生路，那就是改投Journal of Applied Physics，于是，本人按照审稿人的意见又改了一些。由于一月份父亲的身体出了点问题，提前回老家了，家离四川有点远，所以修改又拖了一段时间，最终三月份投到了Journal of Applied Physics。这次运气还真不错，编辑
35、部处理稿件的速度还真快，审稿也快，呵呵！心里暗暗有点高兴！下面是文章的处理过程：Revision Received2009-05-07 09:53:41 Waiting for Revision2009-04-08 13:45:38 Decision Sent2009-04-08 13:45:38 Decision Letter Being Prepared2009-03-30 16:29:58 Editorial Evaluation - Editor2009-03-30 11:04:55 Under Review2009-03-16 12:31:33 Securing Reviewer(s
36、)2009-03-12 15:43:32 Under Consideration - Editorial Office2009-03-12 11:35:24 Author-Approved Files Submitted2009-03-09 03:59:53 Under Consideration - Editorial Office2009-03-09 03:59:52 Author-Approved Files Submitted2009-03-09 03:59:52 Awaiting Author Adjustment/Approval of Converted Files2009-03
37、-09 03:45:11 Manuscript Files Uploaded2009-03-09 03:35:28Preliminary Manuscript Data Posted2009-03-09 02:59:45嘿嘿，一个月还不到就收到初审意见，这对JAP来说速度是算快的了，我们实验室还有一篇文章投出去都快100天了，现在还在找审稿人，真够让人郁闷的。一如既往，把审稿意见贴出来吧。Reviewer Comments: Reviewer #1 Evaluations: RECOMMENDATION: Major Revision Sufficient New Physics in an
38、Applied Area: Yes Appropriate Length: Yes Well Organized and Clearly Written: No Good Title: Yes Good Abstract: Yes Clear Figures: Yes Adequate References: Yes TECHNICAL QUALITY RATING: Marginal PRESENTATION RATING: Marginal Reviewer #1 (Comments to the Author): I recommend major revision, because t
39、here are a few things which need to be improved: -the theoretical part describes in very detail an improved description of the split-gate induced potential. The authors claim that these calculations are more precise than earlier calculations. To justify this claim they compare their data with experi
40、mental values, see Fig. 5 b). But the experimental values used are very limited and only for large pinched off channels. This claim is not justified by using only these data! - The quantized current is calculated for a split-gate device. Then at the very end, experimental data of an etched device is
41、 presented: this does not fit together. The potential landscape in an etched device is different from a split gate device. Why do the authors not calculate such a device? Then, experimental and theoretical data would fit together. - So either the claim that their method of calculation is better need
42、s to be more solid, or the experimental and theoretical data needs to fit together. - finally, the language needs some improvement (a lot of prepositions are missing)审稿人的意见很中肯，于是，我按照审稿人的意思，把文章又仔仔细细地改了一遍，补充了实验数据。删掉了最后一个与我们计算的器件不是对应的实验图，增加了一篇参考文献。其中还改了里面的英语表达。修改完成后，给审稿人的修改说明竟然有四页，呵呵。修改完成，马上投过去，这次更快，速度
43、快得惊人，当时还把我吓出了冷汗。不信就看看吧Manuscript Sent to Production2009-05-11 13:03:17 Decision Sent2009-05-11 13:03:17 Decision Letter Being Prepared2009-05-08 14:35:22 Editorial Evaluation - Editor2009-05-08 13:31:50 Under Review2009-05-07 13:47:23 Securing Reviewer(s)2009-05-07 11:15:56 Under Consideration - Editorial Office2009-05-07 11:15:55 Author-Approved Files Submitted2009-05-07 10:14:15 Under Consideration - Editorial Office2009-05-07 10:14:15 Author-Approved Files Submitted2009-05-07 10:14:14 Awaiting Author Adjustment/Approval of Converted Files2009-