Redian新闻
>
一篇文章在5名审稿人审稿,1年的修改之后被拒:(
avatar
一篇文章在5名审稿人审稿,1年的修改之后被拒:(# Economics - 经济
e*o
1
在微博上偶尔翻到了一个视频,他的描述是这样写的:听着这些歌,才发现20年过的如此之快。打开看了看,越看越觉得心如刀割啊!这些歌我都听了,再看看那些歌的发行时间,我的青春竟然走了这么远。
在这个视频里,列举了这几首歌:
1、王力宏的《大城小爱》,2006年发行,10年前的歌;
2、周杰伦的《发如雪》,2005发行,11年前的歌;
3、杨臣刚的《老鼠爱大米》,2004年发行,12年前的歌;
4、周杰伦的《东风破》,2003年发行,13年前的歌;
5、刀郎的《2002年的第一场雪》,2002年发行,14年前的歌;
6、周杰伦的《双节棍》,2001年发行,15年前的歌;
7、任贤齐的《天涯》,2000年发行,16年前的歌;
8、谢霆锋的《谢谢你的爱1999》,1999年发行,17年前的歌;
9、动力火车的《当》,1998年发行,18年前的歌。
之所以我觉得心痛,是因为这些歌明明是现在自己闲着没事都会唱两句,自己内心深处觉得这都是流行歌曲,而事实上这个歌已经早就成了经典金曲,现代人怀旧用的。这两年特别流行“致青春”,可我现在怎么有一种“致哀青春”的感觉。看看现在电视上和网上如雨后春笋般冒出来的一波波明星,一多半根本都不认识,都说谁谁谁现在特别火,哪部剧点击量特别高,可就觉得不如我的“小燕子”,真应该让现在的小孩看看,什么叫万人空巷,什么叫连爸爸妈妈也喜欢的青春剧。
avatar
a*n
2
很是郁闷。感觉re-reviewer没有详细再看文章,因为re-reviewer把significant
estimated coefficient看成insignificant。另外我修改文章的时候没有全部follow这
个re-reviewer的意见,所以似乎这个re-reviewer不太高兴。
现在我的问题是:接下来该如何做?
(1) ignore the editor's rejection email, move on, and revise the paper and
submit elswhere;
(2) reply the editor's email to thank him, move on, revise the paper and
submit elswhere;
(3) reply the editor's email to defend myself and hope to convince the
editor to re-send the paper to other re-reviewers.
This is my first chance of b
avatar
j*l
3
submit to other journal.
avatar
c*b
4
If I were you, I would choose (1).
avatar
z*e
5
Move on. It's hard to overturn an editor's decision especially for a junior
researcher. With due respect, I have to say that it's not appropriate for u
to revise ur paper without following the reviewer's comments. You have to
take their comments very seriously. If for some reason u cannot do what the
reviewer has asked for, explain it carefully in ur response and try to come
up with a similar exercise along the same line of the reviewer's suggestion.
Unless u know that the reviewer is ur friend,
avatar
a*n
6
Hi, All. Thanks for the tips!
I will move on and submit elswhere.
Why I did not follow the re-reviewer's comments is as:
In my old paper, I have a theoretical model, which is supposed to motivate
later emprical exercise. However, the reviewers do not think the theoretical
model sufficiently motivate later empirical exercise. So some reviewers
suggestted to drop this model and replace it with a discussion of previous
literature to motivate the econometric specification. The re-reviewer
suggested
avatar
c*b
7
我觉得如果你做的topic不是超级冷僻,还有这个reviewer不是你的key reference的作
者的话,落到他手里的机会应该不大。还有我觉得reviewer的排序不说明问题吧?我当
phd学生的时候给人review过paper,后来我看作者的回复我是reviewer 1.这能说
editor觉得我很重要?
看了你的帖子,我开始对一个我的进入第三轮review的paper产生忧虑了,人为刀俎,
我为鱼肉啊。这里有没有人第三轮被拒的?

theoretical

【在 a***n 的大作中提到】
: Hi, All. Thanks for the tips!
: I will move on and submit elswhere.
: Why I did not follow the re-reviewer's comments is as:
: In my old paper, I have a theoretical model, which is supposed to motivate
: later emprical exercise. However, the reviewers do not think the theoretical
: model sufficiently motivate later empirical exercise. So some reviewers
: suggestted to drop this model and replace it with a discussion of previous
: literature to motivate the econometric specification. The re-reviewer
: suggested

相关阅读
logo
联系我们隐私协议©2024 redian.news
Redian新闻
Redian.news刊载任何文章,不代表同意其说法或描述,仅为提供更多信息,也不构成任何建议。文章信息的合法性及真实性由其作者负责,与Redian.news及其运营公司无关。欢迎投稿,如发现稿件侵权,或作者不愿在本网发表文章,请版权拥有者通知本网处理。