科学网-和知名杂志主编过招：一段奇妙经历-王亚非的博文

和知名杂志主编过招：一段奇妙经历

2017-7-29 15:21

阅读：17290

大家都知道在中国SCI是衡量一个科研人员水平的非常重要指标，实际上从某种角度来说可能是唯一的了。我今天所将要讲的例子是千万不要加深对这方面的迷信！

一般而言我只要认为我所做的一个研究有充足的创新性理由的话我会将其投稿到一个比较靠谱的杂志上去，我不十分注重影响因子，只要这是个国际性杂志同时发表过在我们这个行当中著名的研究论文就行。我有过在国内投稿时点子被剽窃的惨痛经历，因此只要是重要的我会尽量避免在国内发表。我所谈及的这个杂志的影响因子很高，大致排在中科院的2区，大概是虚荣心所致，很好奇这个知名度那么高的杂志对我的这个研究是什么看法。于是将稿件投出，刚开始还担心了一下子，因为不是native speaker怕不被马上送审，但过了2周左右助理编辑来信说认为稿件达到送审标准了，要安排一个副编辑(AE, Associate editor)，去再审然后再找审稿人去审。之后我足足等了两个多月，我想我有足够的耐心等等也没什么。主编的结论终于下来了，大家可能也猜到了：reject!而且是不能重投的拒稿。被拒稿经历过多次，但这种情况几乎没有，多年的经验使我意识到这很不寻常，因为我可以十分肯定我的研究的重要性，怎么会这么轻易地被拒稿呢？实在想不通，看看评语吧，发现两个审稿人中Reviewer 1主张拒稿，第二个审稿人给出较好的评价认为重要、有趣是大修。但第一审稿人颇为严厉的全面否定了我的研究，我发现他所提出的三点主要理由非但没有一个是成立的，而且缺乏对事物的基本认知。这么一个大牌杂志怎么会找这么一个科学素养如此之低的人来做审稿人呢？我不禁瞥了一下拒稿信的抄送地址，是两个，一个是中科院某单位的官方地址，一个是此单位的看似熟悉的个人地址，大概明白了其中奥妙吧？这个AE大概想让主编把抄送地址写给单位，但谁成想主编那么实诚，顺便把他个人地址也写上了。我于是写信给主编，具体如下：

Dear Chief editor,
I have received this decision message. The reject is not surprised, but I don't think that it is resonable, especially the comments from Reviewer 1. All of three reasons he proposed were totally wrong. I have provided fully explanations why our results were different from previous study and how our results are reasonable and significantly important. It was very clear. We spent more than three years to carefully investigate this one, but he could deny our study in this way so easilly. I don't know why he confounds right with wrong.
On the other hand, I found the editor who handled our manuscript may be Dr. Z1. We have serious academic conflict in the view point of Z2P theory that proposed by Z2. Attached was our debate paper in Z3 Journal in 2016.
Dr. Z1 has ever publised quite number of papers supporting Z2P theory. So, I think that this decision would not be fair to our study. Could you please reconsider our manuscript? I can provide the details about why and how the Reviewer 1 was wrong. Thank you. Sincerely yours,
我在这里告诉主编我和那个叫做Z1的AE有着严重的学术冲突，我把在著名杂志Z3上登载的有关揭露他们学术不端问题的论文附上，说如果让这个人去找审稿人对我们是不公平的，另外，我还告诉主编第一审稿人的评论是完全错误的。在随后紧接着的第二封信中我详细地阐述了第一审稿人的所谓三个理由是如何不成立，并指出要么是完全没看懂这篇论文要么就是故意混淆黑白。主编回信感谢我的意见反馈并承诺调查，半个月过去了，在我的催促下主编语言沉重地告诉我他需要些时间调查，这是serious matter!即发生了严重问题。这下我彻底醒悟了，在接下来的回信中我告诉主编我领悟到Z1先生可能会在我投稿的第一时间联系上Z2先生，然后由Z2先生操刀来作为对我所揭露的学术不端的报复。他们大概认为这样一来即打击了我的学术热情又可以显示他们无所不能的权力从而证明他们的所谓Z2P理论的正当性还可以表明他们才是在中国最强的学术团队力量。我然后阐述了在中国学术造假代价低廉的道理，而且警告说虽然我无权干涉你们内部但作为作者我必须告诉说此案例表明这种黑暗势力已经侵入到他们的杂志内部，他不得不面对这样严重的局面。

大致又过了一个月主编来信说他们找了一个第三方的审稿人，结论仍然是拒稿，全然不提调查结果如何。于是我给主编回信如下：

Dear Chief Editor
I have read the comments of the Reviewer 3 and think it is much more professional than the Reviewer 1, which will be useful for the revising. Thank you.
However, I don't understand why you still let the AE select reviewer for our paper once again. You said that "the AE’s handling of the paper was transparent and consistent with the agreed practice of the journal". I don't think so. You have not denied that Dr. Z1 deliberately selected Z2 as the Reviewer 1 who has serious conflict with me, which you did not know it before. So, it was not transparent to you and me when the AE finished his first opinion review. This behavior (you call it serious matter) directly resulted in the occurrence of unfair review. How can I think it "consistent with agreed practice of your journal"? I said I do not have a position saying something about your internal affairs. But as an author, I guess that the AE may have done such thing more than once, which was what I said "If you find one blackbeetle there, a lot must exist". Dr. Z1 is not suitable for this AE.
On the other hand, the Reviewer 3 think that our paper is interesting and important issue although he pointed out some "errors". I think it is not too hard to solve them. Normally, the paper should be encouraged resubmission as I have the experiences of an editor. However, your decision implies impossible. It is still not fair. I sincerely hope that you could change your mind. I am looking forward to hearing your reply.

我写到：你找到的第三审稿人确实比第一个要表现的专业多了，这对我将来的修改会有帮助的，谢谢。但是我所不能理解的是你为啥还让那个AE去找审稿人，并且说这个AE的操作全程是透明的。我可不那么认为：因为你没有否认这个AE会把稿子让那个和我有严重学术冲突的人去审，这项操作那时你并不知情，所以第一次审稿的操作对你我来说都不是透明的，这种行为（你称之为“严重问题”）直接导致了不公正的评审结果，你怎能让我相信你的话“和你们杂志的确认操作标准一致”呢？我是没有资格对你们内部事务说三道四，但作为一个投稿人，我猜这个AE可能做过不少类似的事情，正所谓在房间中能发现一个蟑螂就意味着会有很多。Dr Z1其实已经不再适合做AE了。

另外，即使是第三审稿人也不得不承认我的文章是有趣而且重要的工作，即使他列举的“错误”也并不那么难改，一般而言这种情形至少也要鼓励重投，而你的这个决定竟然暗示不许，所以这依然不公正，我希望得到你的回复。
---------

他马上回复到：

Dear Dr Wang,

Thankyou for your response, copied below. I can confirm that Reviewer 3 was selected by the two co-Chief Editors, L1 and myself, as a trusted independent reviewer.

The reasons for rejection of this paper are based on its scientific weaknesses, and the poor quality of the presentation. This conclusion was reached on consideration of the first two reviews, and confirmed by the third. There is no evidence of any personal bias in this process.

This journal respects the anonymity of its reviewers, and therefore we will not engage in any discussion of their identity.

I am sorry about your disappointment with this submission. I hope that if you address the scientific and stylistic criticisms of the reviewers, you will have success with the paper in future with another journal.

Best regards,

他的口气缓和多了：说这第三审稿人是他和另一个主编敲定的是独立的极为可靠，你的拒稿决定主要是文章缺陷所致，这也核实了前面审稿人的意见。我们的杂志尊重匿名评审所以不讨论他们的身份为何。

我很抱歉你感到失望，我希望既然你有如此的能力来批评评审人你也一定会成功地在别的杂志上发表这篇文章。

---------

我的回信为：

Dear Chief Editor,
I am still confused by your words. If the Reviewer 3 was selected by your two Chief editors as you said now, why did you write down: "??-17-0027 Secondary AE opinion review" in front of the comments by Reviewer 3? To my understanding, the two statements were obviously addressing opposite meanings. Am I wrong due to "the poor quality of the presentation" of English?
As a matter of fact, you owe us a detailed explanation of the investigation.
You said "There is no evidence of any personal bias in this process". No, I have enough evedences to prove the personal bias in the process as mentioned before.
You said "This journal respects the anonymity of its reviewers, and therefore we will not engage in any discussion of their identity". But how about respecting the science and the victim whose study is obvious valuable? I think that a scientific journal should pay more respect to science.
Actually, both you and me know their identity. It is not a secret. Dr. Z1 is the AE and Reviewer 1 is Z2! Thus, the first review became flawed and invalid. In addition, the Reviewer 2 did not give a rejection. Your decision only followed the Reviewer 1's suggestion.
What you did to me was nothing but covering the flaws. Can you even give me one reason that you did not support the scientific misconduction? Why didn't you let AE take the responsibility for it? The AE should appoloogize for it.
Please note that I don't give up my rights.
Sincerely,

我仍然倍感困惑的是既然你说第三审稿人是你们俩主编选的为什么会在标题上打着“AE的第二评审意见”呢？我怎么理解这两个句子的意思是截然相反的呢？我的这种理解错误是不是由于你给我文章的评语“低下的英语表达方式”所造成的呢？

事实上你欠我们一个调查结果的解释。你说评审过程中没有证据表明有个人偏见，不对，如前所述我有充分的证据证明这种个人偏见。

你说你们杂志尊重匿名评审不讨论他们的身份，但是你们杂志怎么对待科学以及明显有科学价值的牺牲品呢？我认为既然是科学杂志当然要对科学予以更多的尊重。

事实上你我都清楚的知道AE和第一评审人是谁，这不是秘密：Dr.Z1和Z2。所以第一次评审是有缺陷的和无效的，另外由于第二评审人并没有给出拒稿建议，所以你的第二拒稿决定只不过是遵循第一审稿人的意见而已。你这样做的目的没有别的解释不过是掩盖你们的评审缺陷而已。你能告诉我哪怕一个理由你没有支持这种学术不端行为吗？为什么你不让那个AE负责并且道歉呢？

我不会放弃我的权利的。
-------------

他开始沉默，我设法打破僵局：

Dear Chief Editor,
I think that you are not going to reply to my two letters I sent you a week ago. It is OK since I may not explain the meaning very clearly. I will not complain that you have given the rejection again as well.
What I want to say is that you cannot just fool us like this and then walk away. This is not correct although I understand that you just want to maintain the authority of the editors of this journal. I'd like to list the reasons why you were not right: (1)You cannot hide the fact, i.e. the AE, Z1 abused his power because of his personal selfishness; (2)The authority of a journal should not be maintained by hiding something important. On the contrary, people would more respect it by making its more transparent. Otherwise, the respect would become its opposite.
As for this case, don't you think that Dr. Z1 should explain it or apologize to me? It is obviously his fault and you shouldn't take whole responsibility instead of him. Please pass this message to him. I belive that he has the courage to talk about this with me as a responsible editor, or as a man. If so, I would consider to forgive.
Sincerely yours,
P.S. Please also pass this message to another Chief Editor, Thanks.

我觉得你可能不打算回我一周前的两封信，没问题，因为可能我没解释的太清楚，我也不打算抱怨你的拒稿决定。

我想说的是你们不能就这么耍了人之后拍拍屁股开溜了。这可真的不对，虽然我明白你只是想维持这个杂志编辑的权威而出此下策。我来说明为什么你做的是错的（1）你无法隐瞒这样的事实，即：你们的AE出于私欲滥用职权，（2）你们这样的杂志不应该是靠掩盖什么重要事实来维持权威的，正相反如果你能增强透明度会得到大家更多的尊重，否则只会走向尊重的反面。

对于这个案例，你是否认为Z1应该直接进行解释或者道歉？因为明显是他的问题你不该替他负全责吧，请帮忙给我带个口信给他，我相信他会有勇气以一个负责任的编辑或者一个男人来和我进行这个案例的对话。如果这样的话我会考虑原谅。请同时把信转给另一主编，谢谢。

-----------------

我的意思很明显替他开脱，否则他担全责可受不了，另外，我暗示那个AE如果不敢直接回应的话就不是男人只是懦夫，没过一个小时就收到回信了：

Dear Dr Wang,

Thankyou for your email.

To repeat my earlier response on this matter, my inquiry into the review
and decision on your paper has assured me that the process was followed
correctly and without bias.

I have indeed consulted my Co-Chief Editor at every stage in this inquiry.
I have also informed the Chair of the Journals Committee of the outcome,
and given her a summary of the details. Professor Z1 has also been
informed of the outcome of the inquiry.

I understand that you are disappointed with the decision on your paper. I
hope that you will be able to revise the paper and find better success
with another journal.

I do not intend to engage in further discussion on this case.

Regards,

我重申评审过程没有偏见

我确实和另一个主编商讨调查的每一个阶段，并将此事结果通知了杂志委员会主席，我们已经就调查结果通知了Z1。

我理解你对拒稿决定的失望，我希望你能通过修改在其他杂志中取得较好的成功。

我不打算再讨论此事了。

---------

我的回答是：

Dear Dr. ,
Thank you for your quick reply and passing my message to related editors.
You didn't understand why I was so disappointed with this matter. I don't care if the decision was reject or not as long as it makes sense. I can revise it well according to the valuable suggestions from high level reviewers. I believe the paper evenllually being published in some good journal. This is why I prefer to submiting a paper I think important to a reliable journal like your journal. However, the AE's actions ruined it all. It is even more difficult to accept that the AE may have sent our paper to a person who has committed the serious scientific misconduct I found. It was really an insult to me! Do you understand this?
I appreciate you to help me to find the Reviewer 3 who addressed some good suggestions for us. I understand all of your actions with this letter.
By the way, I think that you have passed my message to Dr. Z1. I am waiting for his explanation or apology. He may bear serious consequences without the explanation.
Sincerely yours,

谢谢你的快速回复并将我的口信带给相关编辑。

你没理解我为什么这么失望。我并不在乎评审结论是拒稿还是别的什么，只要这个结论言之有理。因为，这样我们可以根据高水平审稿人的建议来修改好稿件，我相信这样修改的文章最终会被发表在杂志上的。这就是为什么我喜欢将我认为有些价值的文章投往一个值得信赖的（例如你们的）杂志上。然而，这个AE却毁了这一切。更令人难以接受的是这个AE极有可能把我的这个稿件送审给一个我曾经指出过的有严重学术不端行为的人。这对我来说实在是一个侮辱，你能明白这些吗？

我感谢你替我们找了第三评审人，他的好建议会有帮助的。

通过这封信我也能理解了你的所有相关行动。

另外，我认为您已经替我把口信带给了Z1。我在等待他的解释或者道歉。如果没有等着回应，他可能会承担严重后果。

==============================

这位主编从刚开始认为问题严重，后来又开始抵赖，最后实在扛不住只好说了部分实情来看，这个杂志确实是把这当个事来处理，现在我当然暂时不会继续逼迫主编，据我的经验这样的AE可能会被劝退。当然作为国人也可能会赖着不走，但也不会好受到哪里去。我还在等待这个AE的反应，他应该懂得严重后果意味着什么的。

这可真是一段非常奇妙的经历！