毕业论文心得分享我的投稿经历-酸甜苦辣

1、毕业论文心得分享我的投稿经历-酸甜苦辣jap论文接收分亨我的投稿经历一酸甜苦辣 guohuazhong今天收到邮件，我的一篇journal of applied physics论文已被接 收，心情当时还是有点激动。虽然这个杂志的影响因子不是很高，大 概2. 2左右吧，这也不是我的第一篇sci论文，但冋想这一年发文章 的坎坎坷坷，以及亲身经历的四川大地震，心里还是有很多的感触。 这篇论文是我在2008年二月份完成的最初稿，于二月九号投到 physics letters a 上，在经历了 technical check, with editor, under review后，于三月二十号收到编辑的

2、决定信，当时就傻了一 拒稿！受打击了。下面是编辑的信以及审稿意见，我想把它贴出来与 虫友们分享，一方而我认为，通过看审稿人的意见，可以帮助大家更 好地写作，提高自己的科研水平和能力，另一方面也是答谢小木虫上 很多无私的虫友们，是他们将自己的投稿经历贴在网上，与大家分享， 我想我没有理市不拿出来哈！同时，也希望小木虫的虫子们能继续发 扬这种精神，大家同舟共济，共同提高！好了，废话说了一大堆，不 说了，下面是physics letters a的审稿意见：ms. ref. no. : x x x x x xtitle: x x x x xphysics letters adear professor

3、 x x,reviewers， comments on your work have now been received. you will see that they are advising against publication of your work. therefore i must reject it.for your guidanee, i append the reviewers， comments below.thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.yours sincerely,xxx （

4、编辑名）editorphysics letters areviewers， comments:the authors present results of the 3d electron potential of a gated quantum point contact in a algaas/gaas heterostructure. in contrast to earlier studies, it is now possible to derive thepotential landshape without any adjustable parameter the resultss

5、till agree with earlier investigations using simpler phenomenologicalmodels since the used nextnano3 program is available since a couple of years, i wonder why this has not been done earlierthe authors emphasize an application of their results having the complete potential landshape might help, in t

6、he future, to better understand the quantized acoustoelectric current in setsaw devices and to improve their performancehowever, the authors do not show or even discuss how this can be achieved therefore i believe that in the present form the paperis not suitable for publication.the authors should c

7、onsider the following suggestions,questions,and remarks1) page 1, first paragraph'.due to the negatively applied gate voltage ' it is the sawthat drives the electrons through the contact, not the gate voltage.maybe replace this sentence by ' ,depending on the applied gatevoltage'2) p

8、age 3, paragraph starting with j generally, the quantized ''.with fixed x 二 1050 nm and ' skip the ' o' one could addthat this is exactly at the center of the device3) at the end of the same paragraph is ' once the bias is below .'should this not be the gate instead of th

9、e bias voltage?4) page 4, paragraph starting with 'as we know, in the ''.to be different from previous calculations ' replace by' in contrast to previous calculations '5) the strongly different behaviour above and below the pinch-offvoltage is not obvious for the non-experts

10、all curves look more or less the same. one could, for example, add another figure,or insert, to show the potential height versus gate voltage6) i low do these theoretical results of potential height versus gatevoltage compare with experiments? there exists at least one report to determine the potent

11、ial height of quantum-point contactsbelow pinch-off as function of gate voltage (gloos et al. , phys rev. b 73, 125326 (2006). possibly, one could also compare the present data with 3d simulations of quantum dots (vasileska et al.,semicond sci. technol 13, a37 (1998)7) figure 1, it would be better t

12、o mark the distance between the two metal gatesas the relevant parameter, and not the size of one gate8) figure 3the numbering of the two density axes looks rather odd could it notbe done with integers, like 3 instead of 3.2 or 3.0?9) figure 5 (b)should there not be an anomaly or kink in the potenti

13、al near the fermilevel?在仔细读了审稿人的意见后，我觉得审稿人提出的5)和6)意见非常 好，后來自己想想，决定把文章來个彻底的修改。1. 改动文章的英语，审稿人提出了儿个英语的语法。这个很容易改。2. 改动文章的结构。换了很多图。因为我们做的是实验和理 论计算的结合。首先，我加了实验。把我们实验当中照的有关样品的 结构补充到了文章当中，比如分裂栅的结构，叉指的结构等等。3. 把我们理论计算得到的在二维电子气中的势垒高度和我 们的实验做了对比，遗憾的是我们的实验当时只做了三条曲线，后面 的审稿意见就提出來了，这点后面再说。也就是满足了审稿意见6)。 然后把计算的势垒高度画成

14、与分裂栅电压的关系，满足了审稿意见5)4. 加了理论计算声电电流。这个在pla稿中没有，我们的计 算所用到的势场是我们自己计算得到的，而不是用简单的解析表达式 的形式。这个修改可是个相当漫长的过程，期间我们经历了人生一辈子都不会 忘记的5. 12四川汶川大地震。受地震的影响，文章的修改拖了三四 个月。改完之后，由于自我感觉良好，所以胆了也大起來了，于是就 投到了 physical review b 中的 rapid communications 板块，很快 编辑就回信了，客气地说我的文章太长了，然后建议我修改后作为 regular paper投physical review bo这里我还是把编

15、辑的信贴出 来与大家分享。dear dr. xxx,we acknowledge the receipt of the above manuscript submitted tothe rapid communications section of physical review b.we have examined your manuscript and it appears to be quite focusedon application and material science therefore, a more detailed letter as to what new and s

16、ignificant physics is presented in yourmanuscript and why physical review b is the most appropriate journalfor your manuscript would be very helpful.please note that in doing a preliminary character count, we have found that your manuscript is too long for the short paper sectionsof our journa 1. in

17、 view of this and the above, we feel that it will be more productive if we consider this as a regular article when we receive a persuasive response to the above concern you mayalso wish to revise your manuscript so that the new and significantphysics is better highlighted in addition, please expand

18、it intoa regular article format (e. g by adding section headings) and weencourage you to add any material our readership may benefit fromsince no length limit applieswe will hold your manuscript in our office until we receive your responseyours sincerely,当吋觉得编辑这么说了，感觉还是挺有希望的，于是快马加鞭修改, 之后就投出去了。大概历时三个

19、月收到审稿意见。判决结果一拒！有 一次败了！当时心情十分沮丧。审稿意见如下：dear dr. xxx,the above manuscript has been reviewed by two of our referees comments from the reports are enclosedwe regret that in view of these comments we cannot accept the paperfor publication in the physical reviewyours sincerely,x x x xassistant editorphysi

20、cal review bemail: prbridge aps o_rgfax: 631-591-4141 http:/prb aps org/physics - spotlighting exceptional research: http:/physics aps org/prl celebrates 50 years: http:/pr1. /50years/prb editors， suggestions: /#suggestionsreport of the first referee x x x/x x xthe paper aims

21、 at the numerical solution of the set of schroedingerand poisson equations for a split-gate structure and subsequent application of the results to calculation of quantizedacoustoelectric current.the paper is sound and well written. however, in my view, it does notcontain enough new physics to warran

22、t its publication in the physicalreview since the work seems to be useful to people involved inoptimizing standards of electrical current i recommend to resubmit thepaper to a journal more specialized on applications, such as thejournal of applied physicsreport of the second referee - x x x/x x xthe

23、 subject of the paper is an interesting one, although the focus ofthe community has shifted away from it in the meantime neverthelessthe paper would be worth publishing if it gave better evidence in theinteresting electron transport mechanism prevailing in this effect.specifically the authors presen

24、t numerical results for the potentialin a saw driven split-gate induced small channe1. they claim in the abstract that "the potential barrier heights calculated in the closed-channel-regime agree well with the experiment we performed. " to my understanding they (implicitly) claim that thei

25、rnumerical method provides better understanding of the setsaw effectand that it should allow for a better design of such deviceshowever, they do not give any experimental result to support theirclaim. the quantitative results of the numerical calculations could prove their superiority by comparison

26、with experimental result obtained from correspondingly tailored devices, but the authors only repeat general statements like "agrees very wellwith experimentwithout presenting experiments withoutspecificcomparisons the reader (if he knows the literature well) just learnsthat there is a kind of

27、qualitative agreement but such qualitative,and even semi-quantitative, agreement has been obtained before withsimpler phenomenological j ansatz* like potential distributions thepresent paper reaches similar conclusions as previous work but neverdemonstrates where the numerical calculations are more

28、precise or provide better understanding of the physics.the style of the paper is not appropriate and should be revised bya native english speaker i recommend to reject the paper.不过沮丧归沮丧，生活还得继续，继续改投吧，好在第一个审稿人给 我指明了一条生路，那就是改投journal of applied physics,于 是，本人按照审稿人的意见乂改了一些。由于一月份父亲的身体出了 点问题，提前回老家了，家离四川有点

29、远,所以修改乂拖了一段吋间， 最终三月份投到了 journal of applied physicso这次运气还真不 错，编辑部处理稿件的速度还真快，审稿也快，呵呵！心里暗暗有点 高兴！下面是文章的处理过程：revision received2009-05-07 09:53:41waiting for revision2009-04-08 13:45:38decision sent2009-04-08 13:45:38decision letter being prepared2009-03-30 16:29:58editorial evaluation - editor2009-03-30

30、11:04:55under review2009-03-16 12:31:33securing reviewer(s)2009-03-12 15:43:32under consideration 一author-approved filesunder consideration 一editorial office2009-03-12 11:35:24submitted2009-0309 03:59:53editorial office2009-03-09 03:59:52submitted200903-09 03:59:52author-approved filesawaiting autho

31、r adjustment/approval of convertedfiles2009-03-09 03:45:11manuscript files uploaded2009-03-09 03:35:28preliminary manuscript data posted2009-03-09 02:59:45 嘿嘿，一个月还不到就收到初审意见，这对jap來说速度是算快的了, 我们实验室还有一篇文章投出去都快100天了，现在还在找审稿人, 真够让人郁闷的。一如既往，把审稿意见贴出來吧。reviewer comments:reviewer #1 evaluations:recommendation

32、: major revisionsufficient new physics in an applied area: yesappropriate length: yeswell organized and clearly written: nogood title: yesgood abstract: yesclear figures: yesadequate references: yestechnical quality rating: marginalpresentation rating: marginalreviewer #1 (comments to the author):i

33、recommend major revision, because there are a few things which need to be improved:-the theoretical part describes in very detail an improved description of the split-gate induced potentia1. the authors claim that these calculations are more precise than earlier calculations to justify this claim th

34、ey compare their data with experimental values, see fig 5 b). but the experimental values used are very limited and only for large pinched off channels this claim is not justified by using only these data! -the quantized current is calculated for a split-gate device then at the very end, experimenta

35、l data of an etched device is presented: this does not fit together the potential landscape in an etched device is different from a split gate device why do the authors not calculate such a device? then, experimental and theoretical data would fit together-so either the claim that their method of ca

36、lculation is better needs to be more solid, or the experimental and theoretical dataneeds to fit together- finally, the language needs some improvement (a lot of prepositions are missing)审稿人的意见很中肯，于是，我按照审稿人的意思，把文章乂仔仔细 细地改了一遍，补充了实验数据。删掉了最后个与我们计算的器件 不是对应的实验图，增加了一篇参考文献。其中还改了里面的英语表 达。修改完成后，给审稿人的修改说明竟然有四页，呵呵。修改完成， 马上投过去，这次更快，速度快得惊人，当吋还把我吓出了冷汗。不 信就看看吧manuscript sent to production2009-05-ll 13:03:17decision sent2009-05-11 13:03:17decision letter being prepared2009-05-08 14:35:22editorial evaluation - editor2009-05-08 13:31:50under review2009-05-07 13:4