H*****e
发帖数: 120 | 1 My students and fellows are discussing about why JBC is going down this
afternoon. Then I told them my JBC experience since I did publish on JBC
but they know I hate it now. I believe that it is editorial board made it
worse every year.
My 1st and 2nd publications as student and 1st and 2nd publications as
postdoctoral were on JBC as well as some other co-author JBC papers.
The 1st one was a struggle: 20 pages double space manuscript, reviewed by 3
times with single space comment of 5 pages on 1st, 4 pages on 2nd, and 2
pages on 3rd. They should rejected me directly. Many years later, I knew
that they are the friends of my "enamy". So after 14 months, my PI called
editor about it and editor was mad about such a process since my PI argued
that every word in our manuscript being critisized. So paper was in press
after the phone call. The 2nd one was the same but at that time, my
department chair was promoted to editor in JBC. After a few communication
with editoral office, it was published after 1 revision after 7 months.
The 1st one as postdoctoral was published almost instantly. I had no idea
who reviewed it. But he must be a friend of my PI. It is the 1st time that
I read a comment praising my work rather then "review". The 2nd was the
same: they only wanted me to use the standard nomencluture in the first
appearence since my PI discovered the gene and then the name was changed by
others. So I spend 1 minutes revised and send it back. In the night, I
noticed that it is published advanced online.
After these, it was full of nighmare with JBC.
One manuscript, send to Science rejected after actually review but we cannot
add the suggested experience for reasons, was splited into 2 and one send
to JBC. Reviewer asked the same experiments including a knockout. So my
boss comments that JBC reviews paper like reviewing CNS. Both were later
published better then JBC.
After I being PI, a manuscript send to MCB but 3 review comments were
confusing but not rejected. So I send to JBC, this reviewer asked me all
kind of questions and asked me to do specific experiments that we did but
not in his way. Then ended with a place better then JBC.
Then another one I felt perfect for JBC: Reviewer was out of mind and phone
call to editor was very negative. Then publised with an additional control
experiment on a journal better then JBC.
As I experienced, this is such a big journal and heavly relies on reviewers
but little editoral judgement. Although I do not like Cell being led by
editor too much, some balance will help them to keep eye on each other.
Maybe full time editors will be the only solution for JBC. |
m******r
发帖数: 854 | |
w******y
发帖数: 2504 | 3 赞一个。我就恨这种REVIER牙痒痒，我的一片稿子，4个审稿人，第二遍3个都说行了，
剩下那个就是跟我较劲，提各种问题但是不拒你。你说，都到这份儿了，你又不想撤稿
，人家不拒你但是就是不同意。都不晓得要编辑干嘛。 |
o**4
发帖数: 35028 | 4 这种杂志最烦了，遇到不好的reviewer就完蛋了 |
w******y
发帖数: 2504 | 5 对，反正是能把你掉死。你妈，找文章中缺陷谁不会啊，你把CNS的文章拿来我照样能
让你补一堆实验，也不晓得编辑时干嘛吃的。
【在 o**4 的大作中提到】
: 这种杂志最烦了，遇到不好的reviewer就完蛋了
|
p****n
发帖数: 9263 | 6 不对啊，要求这么高，发的文章应该比IF高的期刊更好啊，怎么反而引用更少呢 |
s****9
发帖数: 932 | 7 这么搞几次，好的东西都不往那儿投了。
结果最后发的东西都是一堆实验，但又很boring的东西。
【在 p****n 的大作中提到】
: 不对啊，要求这么高，发的文章应该比IF高的期刊更好啊，怎么反而引用更少呢
|
n********k
发帖数: 2818 | 8 tough experience! but I am not sure this would be a reason to support
professional editors...perhaps you haven't had any MSs turned kicked out of
the door by the professional editors because you are a little potato or
accepted again all the reviewer comments because you are a bull and can make
the call...maybe transparent reviewing processes as being practiced in some
journals might help...
3
【在 H*****e 的大作中提到】
: My students and fellows are discussing about why JBC is going down this
: afternoon. Then I told them my JBC experience since I did publish on JBC
: but they know I hate it now. I believe that it is editorial board made it
: worse every year.
: My 1st and 2nd publications as student and 1st and 2nd publications as
: postdoctoral were on JBC as well as some other co-author JBC papers.
: The 1st one was a struggle: 20 pages double space manuscript, reviewed by 3
: times with single space comment of 5 pages on 1st, 4 pages on 2nd, and 2
: pages on 3rd. They should rejected me directly. Many years later, I knew
: that they are the friends of my "enamy". So after 14 months, my PI called
|
s******y
发帖数: 28562 | 9 这种事情我们在JBC 也遇到过的，当时还来诉过苦。而且我们的经历更狗血。
我们本来是投某分数很高的刊物的，评价其实很不错，但是要求我们补做一些很费时的
试验。
但是当时我们前老板需要发掉那个文章，就不打算和他们纠缠了，就打算直接投JBC。
我们第一稿的时候没有把一个非常费事才完成的试验的数据写进去，因为觉得那些个
数据不是那么的有意义，而且那个实验方法本来就是公认的不可靠，仅仅能当pilot
experiment 来找潜在目标用而已。但是初审的时候某个审稿者一定要我们做那个实验，
我们就想好吧，反正那个数据我们本来就有了，那么我们就直接把它加上好了。
所以我们就加上了然后很快的送了回去。不料送回去之后被三个审稿者（包括那个
要求我们做的）骂得头破血流，说我们那个实验不可靠。我们说，青天大老爷～～～
冤枉啊～～～～这个实验可是你们中某人红口白牙要我们做的～～～～要不，我们把
这个实验的数据给去了您老看行不？ 但是主编才不管这个，就那么把我们拒了。
我们那个时候气得那个半死啊。感觉是被算计了。
后来我们老板怒了半天之后，打算要再和JBC 的主编死死缠上大吵一架的。但是我们
系主任看了我们的文章说，你们的文章很好，应该直接往更高档的地方送，别和JBC
纠缠。于是我们就真的送到某子刊去了，然后居然很顺利就发了，还被杂志发了个
小评来介绍这个文章。
【在 w******y 的大作中提到】
: 对，反正是能把你掉死。你妈，找文章中缺陷谁不会啊，你把CNS的文章拿来我照样能
: 让你补一堆实验，也不晓得编辑时干嘛吃的。
|
l**********1
发帖数: 5204 | 10 阎王好见 小鬼难缠 typical case
验，
【在 s******y 的大作中提到】
: 这种事情我们在JBC 也遇到过的，当时还来诉过苦。而且我们的经历更狗血。
: 我们本来是投某分数很高的刊物的，评价其实很不错，但是要求我们补做一些很费时的
: 试验。
: 但是当时我们前老板需要发掉那个文章，就不打算和他们纠缠了，就打算直接投JBC。
: 我们第一稿的时候没有把一个非常费事才完成的试验的数据写进去，因为觉得那些个
: 数据不是那么的有意义，而且那个实验方法本来就是公认的不可靠，仅仅能当pilot
: experiment 来找潜在目标用而已。但是初审的时候某个审稿者一定要我们做那个实验，
: 我们就想好吧，反正那个数据我们本来就有了，那么我们就直接把它加上好了。
: 所以我们就加上了然后很快的送了回去。不料送回去之后被三个审稿者（包括那个
: 要求我们做的）骂得头破血流，说我们那个实验不可靠。我们说，青天大老爷～～～
|
|
|
S**********e
发帖数: 1789 | 11 我也没觉得EMBo系列那种公开review有什么好的，reviewer照样狮子大开口，编辑要求
全盘接受。
of
make
some
【在 n********k 的大作中提到】
: tough experience! but I am not sure this would be a reason to support
: professional editors...perhaps you haven't had any MSs turned kicked out of
: the door by the professional editors because you are a little potato or
: accepted again all the reviewer comments because you are a bull and can make
: the call...maybe transparent reviewing processes as being practiced in some
: journals might help...
:
: 3
|
n********k
发帖数: 2818 | 12 是公开review 还是公开reviewers?
【在 S**********e 的大作中提到】
: 我也没觉得EMBo系列那种公开review有什么好的，reviewer照样狮子大开口，编辑要求
: 全盘接受。
:
: of
: make
: some
|
d****d
发帖数: 214 | 13 是公开review。
我觉得公开review是一种进步，至少让reviewer有点顾忌，如果意见太离谱，将来会让
同行笑话的。当然，我们看到的只是被接受的。很多因为reviewer being
unreasonable而被枪毙的就无从知晓了。
【在 n********k 的大作中提到】
: 是公开review 还是公开reviewers?
|
d***y
发帖数: 8536 | 14 我的JBC经历和楼主差不多。我以前都是干工业微生物的，投JBC很少。投了一次JBC，
被审了3次，补了一堆有的没的实验，前后花了一年的时间。 不知道为啥JBC引用率大
跌成这个样子。 |
n********k
发帖数: 2818 | 15 Absolutely. 公开review是一种进步.
Nonetheless, it is much easier to put into practice...and
公开reviewer will be a lot harder, at least it could slow down the big bull'
s backdoor and friendly acceptance; but none of these address problems
relating what we are talking here as to rejected MS.
the ultimate will be either double transparent or double blinded reviewing
process between the submitting authors and the reviewers; in theory, it
would be great and could get rid of all the current caveats...However, in
reality, it would extremely hard unless we overhaul the entire scientific
world/community. I would love it if ever this would be possible...
【在 d****d 的大作中提到】
: 是公开review。
: 我觉得公开review是一种进步，至少让reviewer有点顾忌，如果意见太离谱，将来会让
: 同行笑话的。当然，我们看到的只是被接受的。很多因为reviewer being
: unreasonable而被枪毙的就无从知晓了。
|
O******e
发帖数: 4845 | 16 不觉得公开审稿有什么好处。咱总不能忘了当初为什么要匿名/不公开审稿吧？！
and
bull'
【在 n********k 的大作中提到】
: Absolutely. 公开review是一种进步.
: Nonetheless, it is much easier to put into practice...and
: 公开reviewer will be a lot harder, at least it could slow down the big bull'
: s backdoor and friendly acceptance; but none of these address problems
: relating what we are talking here as to rejected MS.
: the ultimate will be either double transparent or double blinded reviewing
: process between the submitting authors and the reviewers; in theory, it
: would be great and could get rid of all the current caveats...However, in
: reality, it would extremely hard unless we overhaul the entire scientific
: world/community. I would love it if ever this would be possible...
|
n********k
发帖数: 2818 | 17 说说，如果可以实现的话，为什么不好？
可行性是另一件事，我知道非常难，不是很难，是不可能，所以都是废话。 有很多现
实性的问题，那也是我为什么说基本不
可能实现除非把我们科学界革命性的变革，小老板审理大老板的问题等；要想双盲那太
难，领域内基本可以肯定来自哪个实验室，除非是全新的东西；
其实一个简单的替代是有高水平的高度自律的职业EDITOR PANEL，他们将集体根据工作
的水平决定是否送稿，根据REVIEWER的表现
决定是否邀请他们审稿，而且搞好回避制度等等，最后在根据REVIEW集体决定是否接受
；这样可
以解决很多问题；可惜人性都是丑陋，所以有人就有江
湖，所以这是个无解的问题，因为没有利益推动。。。
【在 O******e 的大作中提到】
: 不觉得公开审稿有什么好处。咱总不能忘了当初为什么要匿名/不公开审稿吧？！
:
: and
: bull'
|
O******e
发帖数: 4845 | 18 审稿是义务劳动，没有报酬，所以不能给审稿人添加麻烦；而你一旦把审稿人及意见公
开，
不必要的矛盾太容易产生，后果可能非常严重。这样的恶果就是导致绝大多数审稿人只
提一些无关痛痒的问题蒙混过关了事。你问问你自己，你愿意公开跟自己的同行做敌人
么？？
【在 n********k 的大作中提到】
: 说说，如果可以实现的话，为什么不好？
: 可行性是另一件事，我知道非常难，不是很难，是不可能，所以都是废话。 有很多现
: 实性的问题，那也是我为什么说基本不
: 可能实现除非把我们科学界革命性的变革，小老板审理大老板的问题等；要想双盲那太
: 难，领域内基本可以肯定来自哪个实验室，除非是全新的东西；
: 其实一个简单的替代是有高水平的高度自律的职业EDITOR PANEL，他们将集体根据工作
: 的水平决定是否送稿，根据REVIEWER的表现
: 决定是否邀请他们审稿，而且搞好回避制度等等，最后在根据REVIEW集体决定是否接受
: ；这样可
: 以解决很多问题；可惜人性都是丑陋，所以有人就有江
|
n********k
发帖数: 2818 | 19 其实我们想的差不多一样的。不过我也可以告诉你，如果如果大家都像我，那么完全有
可行性！而且立马可以实现，客观的做事待人，没有什么做敌人不敌人的的，这种思路
不好哈：）））
【在 O******e 的大作中提到】
: 审稿是义务劳动，没有报酬，所以不能给审稿人添加麻烦；而你一旦把审稿人及意见公
: 开，
: 不必要的矛盾太容易产生，后果可能非常严重。这样的恶果就是导致绝大多数审稿人只
: 提一些无关痛痒的问题蒙混过关了事。你问问你自己，你愿意公开跟自己的同行做敌人
: 么？？
|
O******e
发帖数: 4845 | 20 如果都象你，咱这汉语算彻底没希望了 ^_^
【在 n********k 的大作中提到】
: 其实我们想的差不多一样的。不过我也可以告诉你，如果如果大家都像我，那么完全有
: 可行性！而且立马可以实现，客观的做事待人，没有什么做敌人不敌人的的，这种思路
: 不好哈：）））
|
n********k
发帖数: 2818 | 21 那是，就这一个缺点还被你抓：）
【在 O******e 的大作中提到】
: 如果都象你，咱这汉语算彻底没希望了 ^_^
|
i**o
发帖数: 76 | 22 just realized how many paper i rejected on JBC -_-!! |
