科技论文写作讲座-DAY2(PM)session31.pptVIP

* * * Of course, this is the result we want. I hope that after this two-day workshop, this will be easier to achieve. ENDS * * * Major or minor revision? Often a whole range of comments so try to impose order before you start Editor may have summarised things for you Get back to this topic at the end of this unit. * * * * * Do I have the data, Can I get the data within the time allowed? Is there another way to solve the problem? Is the analysis possible/reasonable? * * Misunderstanding means text needs to be clearer * * Make it easy for the editor! We have at least considered all the comments Remember the paper may go back to the original referees ‘I’ve dealt with all the comments’ is not enough – but 2-3 pages should suffice. No need to include large chunks of text * * * * * * * Every author thinks their paper is wonderful! If you genuinely feel that the reviewer’s comments or Editor’s comments were wrong or unfair, you may be able to appeal the decision Different journals have different procedures for this: Sometimes it is just a polite letter to the Editor-in-Chief, explaining why you think the decision was unfair or wrong (unfortunately, sometimes a paper will go to a reviewer who is biased against a particular author or their ideas – explain this carefully) In some cases, there is an independent person appointed specially to look at appeals Letter: polite – brief, but explain the issues clearly Sometimes, an Editor will be willing to send the paper to another reviewer or to examine the peer reviewers’ comments again In some cases, the decision may be changed – sometimes not In which case authors just have to accept this and submit to another journal END In this session, I want to talk a little about TWO kinds of ethical issues NEXT * * There are no standard national or international policies on ethical issues. So every publisher / organization / journal has different policies Each journal / publisher will react to an ethical problem in