1 编辑部要求:纠错评论comment letter应该写成研究文章或综述文章
Decision on your submission to Carbon
2024年05月09日 07:08 (星期四)
Ms. Ref. No.: CARBON-D-24-01526
Title: Comments on: “A perspective on impedance matching and resonance absorption mechanism for electromagnetic wave absorbing” by Hou et al. [Carbon 222 (2024) 118935]
Carbon
Dear Dr. Liu,
Thank you for your submission to Carbon. Our Editorial Team screens all new manuscripts for importance, novelty, fit to the journal, presentation quality, and the expected level of interest among our readership in the international carbon materials community. Based on this screening, only a fraction of submissions is sent out for the full peer review process. Unfortunately, we have decided not to continue the reviewing process at this time.
There is a series of papers listed that seem to advocate similar ‘corrections’ in other journals outlined in their letter to the editors. Here the attention seems to be on a single paper by Hou et al. As stated in the abstract 'This is a comment on the problems of the paper by Hou et al., which are related to wrong theories dominated in current research of microwave absorption’. This paper is referenced as [46] (one might logically assume it should be [1]). This seems to be a general research paper focussed on the general theory. It currently does not conform to the format of a letter. It would be advisable to write a ‘review’ or ‘research’ paper in the general context as the link to Hou et al.’s paper seems simply a link to advocate the position in the other papers listed in the cover letter. One also wonders whether the authors have communicated with Hou if the ‘correction’ is solely related to their paper or the wider collection of papers within the journal.
I would also like to emphasize that Carbon receives about 6,000 manuscripts per year and rejects about 80% of the submitted manuscripts. If the manuscript falls short, like in this case, we respectfully ask the authors to submit elsewhere. I would like to emphasize that by taking such a decision, I want to save time on your side since the reviewing process is very strict and extremely tough, and only extremely original papers are accepted with minor revisions.
Please also consider that an appeal of this decision might result in a lengthy and time-consuming editorial process, which in most cases does not revert the editorial decision. The journal will not operate if we consider all appeals for revisions. We thank you for letting us consider your work, and we hope you will submit the best of your future manuscripts to Carbon.
Yours sincerely,xxxEditor in Chiefandxxx.Senior Editor
CarbonImpact Factor: 11.307
Editor and Reviewer Comments:
无(空白)
================
被评文章几乎全篇没有正确观点,被评文章所依据的理论完全错了。该刊大量发表该类文章。
因此纠错应该是重要的,投稿的期刊也是适合的,毕竟被评论的文章发在你的期刊上。
即便你不认可纠错文章的观点,你也需要有充分的学术理由拒稿。
但是编辑部的理由是错误文章远比纠错文章重要,
有严重错误文章可以发表。
纠正严重错误的文章没有达到期刊要求的水平。
编辑部已经暗示申述将是徒劳的。
编辑部甚至认为评述文章(comment letter)的作者在投稿评述文章之前需要与被评文章的作者事先沟通。
被评文章的问题有普遍代表性,这本来说明评论文章的重要需要被发表,
编辑部却以此作为:稿件不应该写成comment letter的理由。
--------------------
评述文章comment letter已经在预印本平台贴出,让历史来裁决被纠正的错误的严重性吧:
https://doi.org/10.32388/9P8Q56
Qeios预印本平台对SCI二区顶刊的一篇微波吸收论文的评论的YouTube视频介绍(包括中英文字幕)
-----------
下面的博文指出被评文章的其它错误:
科学网—科学界能搞出大量实验数据支持错误理论 - 刘跃的博文 (sciencenet.cn)
-------
下面这篇Comment Letter列出91篇错误文章,该评论评刊登在不同刊物上的共同错误:
Comment on the relationship between electrical and optical conductivity used in several recent papers published in the journal of materials science: materials in electronics
K. A. Aly
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics 2022 Vol. 33 Issue 6 Pages 2889-2898
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10854-021-07496-9
2 审稿人要求:研究文章应该写成评论Comment
另一篇评述comment 文章(不同期刊),编辑认同审稿人的要求,认为应该用comment letter的方式写。
相关评语见:
科学网—一篇指出现行微波吸收理论错误的最新文章经历的拒稿历程记录(重点是第2和3节,跟踪敬请待续) - 刘跃的博文 (sciencenet.cn)
文章已经预印本发表;
内容是否重要,让历史来裁决吧。
详见预印本:
https://doi.org/10.32388/QQ1MFF
--------------------
科学网—[转载]Qeios预印本平台的微波吸收纠错论文的YouTube视频介绍(包括中英文字幕) - 刘跃的博文 (sciencenet.cn)
科学网—一篇指出现行微波吸收理论错误的最新文章经历的拒稿历程记录(重点是第2和3节,跟踪敬请待续) - 刘跃的博文 (sciencenet.cn)
期刊第一稿审稿人#1:
“3 Formulation of the problem and results are simple without significant contribution to the literature.”
期刊第二稿审稿人#4
“I propose this because publishing a paper that challenges certain analyses and assumptions to pass a verdict without affording the concerned authors an opportunity
to present their viewpoints is unfair.”
3 无论你怎么写都得拒稿,编辑或审稿人就是找个理由拒稿而已
实际上编辑部就是不想发你的稿件,台面上给出的理由并不是重要的。
对于颠覆主流科学家观点的稿件,无论怎么写,通常都不可能通过期刊同行评审
现代出版界和主流科学家很反感纠错,除非你是大牛:
Vazire, S., 2020. A toast to the error detectors. Nature. 577, 9.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03909-2
编辑部不得已才能发Comment letter纠错
====
如果遇到学术不端,编辑部一般是站在保护学术不端的立场的,
编辑部一般也是没有办法才撤稿的。
曾经看到一篇卫报文章,当有人指出期刊文章学术不端时,编辑装装样子,好像很重视似的,
但是随后拖了几年,不愿意处理。
类似的事情本人遇到过:
跟作者要文章的实验数据,作者不给;当我寻求编辑部帮忙时,编辑部开始表现得很积极,随后以各种理由推脱。
要文章的实验数据都这么难,当涉及学术不端这种重要问题时,编辑部也只是装装样子,能掩盖就掩盖。
现实很骨感。
4 没有任何抱怨的意思
因为评述文章都已经按预印本公开了,对于期刊的拒稿没有任何抱怨、没有任何发表方面的企图。
只是把资料汇总在这里,供后人研究。
至于观点正确与否,不取决于现代人的裁决。
这些东西放在这里作为历史资料,方便让历史做最终的裁决。
将自己亲身经历写出来,有感而发,也是对社会进步的贡献。
如果没有人敢于面对尖锐的问题,这些问题的解决就会遥遥无期。
5 Qeios 是一个优秀的出版平台
Qeios 平台包括预印本和刊物文章两个发表模式,投稿后24小时内在平台展现,
文章完全免费,回归期刊本来应该起的作用。
Qeios的宣传推广做的十分准确到位,
对于被打压的颠覆主流理论的观点,是一个非常优秀的平台。
如果没有这个平台,
期刊编辑肆意妄为,无所顾忌地乱用初审拒稿(乱用不外审权)的期刊评审学术不端很难被揭穿。
随着Qeios 平台作用的发挥,相信今后期刊乱用初审拒稿权的编辑评审学术不端将有所收敛。
对于反对主流理论的稿件,因为不透明,审稿人敢于胡说八道,敢于坚决地无理拒稿,期刊编辑也敢于采用审稿人学术不端的审稿意见。
到目前为止,我们的期刊投稿经验几乎都是这样,例外都是偶然事件。
但是我们在Qeios 平台的预印本:
目前收到6个评审意见,几乎没有一篇来自那些坚决反对的主流科学家,
原因我认为是:评审意见和身份都是公开透明的,白纸黑字,审稿人要为他的评语负历史责任的。
那些胡说八道的审稿人就主动退出审稿。
但是同行评审期刊可以用找不到审稿人的理由拒稿。
我说Qeios 平台优秀,就是他们竟然能找到公正的审稿人。
同样的道理:感谢科学网博客平台。
转载本文请联系原作者获取授权,同时请注明本文来自刘跃科学网博客。
链接地址:https://wap.sciencenet.cn/blog-3589443-1433415.html?mobile=1
收藏