推 lovepork: 沒辦法抗辯 因為主編建議改投 這招是大絕我已經講了 01/05 16:33
→ lovepork: 就算你的文章很符合宗旨又怎樣 你要用這點去抗辯?? 01/05 16:34
→ lovepork: 他就說你不符啊 這就是主編高明之處 這招基本上無解 01/05 16:34
拜託 請原波先仔細閱讀您投稿的期刊之上訴 (Appeal) 政策 每個期刊不同
以下隨意給兩個期刊的政策
APS Journals
Physical Review Letters, Physical Review X, Physical Review, and Reviews of
Modern Physics
July 2013
Editorial and Appeal Procedures
The following summarizes important procedural aspects of the editorial and
appeal processes. Not all aspects of the editorial process are discussed
here, only those which are particularly likely to occur in situations leading
to appeals. Most of the following provides general guidelines rather than
rigid rules capable of being applied in all special situations. Occasional
variations from these guidelines may occur, but of course only if they are
fair and reasonable in the particular circumstances.
Note: In the following, the term “Editorial Board member” is used
generically, and should be understood to include PRL Divisional Associate
Editors.
Some Aspects of Editorial Procedures
1.Most editorial decisions are based on the results of review by one or more
referees. However, if in the judgment of the editor a paper is clearly
unsuitable for the journal to which it is submitted, it will be rejected
without referee review. Authors of such papers have the same right to appeal
as do other authors.
2.Referee reports are advisory to the editors. As a matter of practice,
reports of referees are generally transmitted by the editors to the authors,
but the editors may withhold or edit these reports for cause.
3.Authors may suggest referees who are in their opinion suitable (or
unsuitable) to review a particular manuscript, but editors are not bound to
follow these suggestions.
4.As part of the review process, the editor may consult an Editorial Board
member at his or her discretion. Such consultation may result in informal
advice to the editor, or in a referee report (transmitted to the authors
and/or referees either with or without the name of the Board member).
作為對比 另一個期刊的上訴政策就比較嚴格
Decision Appeal Policy | Journal of Marketing
Policy on Rejected Manuscripts
A manuscript previously rejected by the Journal of Marketing will not be
reconsidered by JM and thus should not be resubmitted to JM. (Previously
rejected manuscripts include those whose rejection decisions were appealed
unsuccessfully.) A revised version of a previously rejected manuscript should
also not be resubmitted to JM.
How and When to Appeal a Journal of Marketing Decision:
No review process is perfect, which means that occasionally a review decision
is in error. The purpose of an appeal process is to provide authors with an
opportunity to overturn reviewing errors. The following guidelines may be
useful in determining when to appeal a review decision.
‧Do not appeal the decision if your primary disagreement is with the
judgment of the editor or reviewers. For example, if they think that the
paper is not important, that it represents an inadequate contribution to the
literature, or that the methods used are inappropriate, those issues are
matters of judgment, and they are not grounds for appeal.
‧Do not appeal if you think you have addressed the reviewers' and/or
editor's) comments, but they do not.
‧Do not appeal if you think the reviewers are mostly positive toward the
paper, and thus the decision is unfair.
‧Do appeal if you believe that the decision resulted primarily from a
technical error on the reviewers' (or editor's) part, and you can
conclusively demonstrate that an error was made.
‧Do appeal if the primary reason for the reject decision, as given in the
decision letter from the editor, can be clearly and unambiguously refuted.
簡單說 期刊經營者都認知到期刊的編輯與評審在審查過程中難免有主觀的判定
有的經營者認為如果作者決定上訴而且上訴函論證有說服力 再找一批編輯和稿審
來聽聽看是否有不同的專業判定意見 以免有遺珠之憾(如第一個例子)
有的經營者則認為這種主觀判定難免 所以不願意給作者對這方面做抗辯 只肯
讓作者對一些明顯的程序疏失抗辯(如第二個例子)
※ 編輯: saltlake (114.44.193.222), 01/05/2017 19:34:25