Re: [期刊] 投稿經驗：Scientific Reports

[Dantesque (Dantesque)]

※ 引述《pintun (Pintun)》之銘言：
: 1. 領域：atomic force microscopy, elastic properties at phase boundary
: 2. 期刊名稱：Scientific Reports  (Impact Factor for 2013: 5.078)
: 3. 結果：Accepted
: 4. 投稿後大約多久才收到結果：
:        Submission                   2014-11-04
:        Peer Review                  2014-11-19
:        Accepted                     2014-12-31
: 5. Reviewer的數目：1
:    完全沒有Comment，不需要修改，建議直接接受

Scientific Reports是open access期刊，我剛好當過幾次reviewer。
我把Scientific Reports要求reviewer審稿的原則po在下面，這樣大家在知道他們家重視
的重點是什麼之後，對於投稿可能會有些幫助。Open access期刊通常比較不重視novelty
，下面第二段有寫。另外，Open access期刊通常都要收費，而且很貴。我的建議是，對
於剛入行的學者或學生，在經費沒問題的前提下Scientific Reports是很好的入門，因為
NPG比起其他出版社的open access期刊，要求還是高很多，除了novelty外整體還是在水
準之上。但是長遠來看，磨練研究的novelty還是躲不掉的苦工，最好不要對open access
的高接受率上癮。我認識的人裡面已經開始有廣用open access湊SCI篇數的傾向，不是好
現象。

To be considered for publication in Scientific Reports, a paper should be
technically sound. Technical soundness refers to both methods and analysis,
i.e. the methods must be appropriate and properly conducted, and the
conclusions drawn must be fully supported by the data. Referees are asked not
to make a judgement on the paper's importance - we ask the scientific
community to make this judgement themselves post-publication.

Scientific Reports, unlike other journals published by Nature Publishing
Group, does not, therefore, require an advance within a given field, and
there is no requirement for novelty or broad interest.

The review form will rapidly allow you to provide feedback in the following
areas:

- Is the paper technically sound?
- Are the claims convincing? If not, what further evidence is needed?
- Are the claims fully supported by the experimental data?
- Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of previous
literature?
- If the manuscript is unacceptable in its present form, does the study seem
sufficiently promising that the authors should be encouraged to consider a
resubmission in the future?

In addition to answering the previous questions, you can provide further
information as free-text, including comments that may answer the following:
- Is the manuscript clearly written? If not, how could it be made more
accessible?
- Have the authors done themselves justice without overselling their claims?
- Have they been fair in their treatment of previous literature?
- Have they provided sufficient methodological detail that the experiments
could be reproduced?
- Is the statistical analysis of the data sound?
- Are there any special ethical concerns arising from the use of animals or
human subjects?

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 114.27.47.221
※ 文章網址: http://www.ptt.cc/bbs/PhD/M.1420381867.A.3D7.html
推 mummyqq: 感謝分享
推 FSGuitar: 感謝分享
推 iamwright: 推
推 tainanuser: 推
→ caseypie: 不要求novelty應該是這本期刊自己的路線，
→ caseypie: 不是open access的通則.....
→ caseypie: 第二段也沒有寫說不要求novelty跟open access有關
推 biolenz: Open access期刊通常比較不重視novelty？那裡來的認知？
→ biolenz: 有點 PLOS One 打翻一船人的感覺。
推 Narcissuss: 這本很夯阿 通常AM NL ACSnano沒上就會丟這了
→ Dantesque: 不好意思，我確實結論快了。精確的說法是SR這期刊不要
→ Dantesque: 求reviewer看novelty的部分，因為這部分要交由作者評斷
→ Dantesque: 。說OA不重視novelty是不對的，只是站在reviewer的角度
→ Dantesque: ，reviewer更重視研究的嚴謹度。
→ Dantesque: 單是新手用這期刊磨練研究的嚴謹度是很好的，所以我才
→ Dantesque: 覺得SR有品牌有門檻，是很好的入門期刊。
推 superwaterdo: 好資訊 謝謝分享
→ pintun: 謝謝重要資訊^^
推 LOLIVA: 不認為journal回要求referee這樣作