[转帖]我搞定期刊的经验 [沉着][乐观][幸运]
- 主题发起人 Haiyang Ai
- 时间
我参与审稿的三家期刊，还真没有“难度相对小一点的”,尤其是牛津的《应用语言学》。一般有三人同时审稿，只要有一个审稿人意见特差，就会枪毙。写文章关键要有自己的data，英文也要过关，这是最基本的。
下面两家刊物对审稿人说的话也许对作者也有启发:
Applied Linguistics (Oxford):
The journal would like a recommendation as to whether you think the article
is:
a) publishable as it stands, or with minor revisions
b) recommended for publication, though with major rewriting
c) not recommended for publication but could be reconsidered following
substantial reworking
d) not recommended for publication in Applied Linguistics
Note that we now have four categories of adjudication, not three. We would
appreciate it if you could indicate, either in the main body of the review
or as a separate statement, the category (a, b, c or d) that in your
judgement best applies to this manuscript.
The journal welcomes articles on all aspects of applied linguistics, whether
theoretical or empirical papers, and whatever the choice of research
paradigm or methodology. We do however expect a paper to have high
standards of argumentation, implementation and reporting, with full and
relevant reference to the background literature; that its theme is
explicitly related to issues of principle and practice within the field; and
that it is accessible to a broad applied linguistic readership.
We would very much appreciate your detailed suggestions and comments -
whether positive or negative - on content and form. In cases where the
article is over the 9,000 word limit, we would also appreciate indications
as to where the author could make cuts to the manuscript. We have no
further format for readers' comments, but you might like to bear in mind
that they will be passed on to the author(s), both to explain our ultimate
decision, and to provide useful feedback. Reviewers' identity of course
remains anonymous.
As a means of providing reviewers with feedback on the articles you review
for the journal, it is our policy to share comments to authors among
reviewers after all reports are in. All comments remain anonymous, of
course. Please prepare your report with this in mind; if you have any
remarks for the editors' eyes only, identify them in a separate section as
"confidential to the editors." If you do not wish to participate in this
exchange of reports, please indicate this when you submit your report. A
list of reviewers is published in the final issue of each volume.
Literary and Linguistic Computing (Oxford)
Briefly, what is this paper about?
What are its major strengths and weaknesses?
What do you think its major contribution to the field of literary and linguistic computing would be, if it were published?
==========
EVALUATION
==========
This paper:
1) [ ] is acceptable more or less as it stands: [explain]
2) [ ] is basically acceptable, but needs more changes
before publication.
The paper is:
[Delete items that do not apply (email) or check
all that do.]
- - too long (list sections)
-- too short (explain what is missing)
- - badly expressed or organized
- - lacking in references to or awareness of related
work
- - too vague or woolly
- - other (explain)
3) [ ] reports interesting work, but is not suitable for publication in its present form because it is:
[Delete all that do not apply (email) or check all that do.]
- - a premature progress report
- - too vague and precise
- - not sufficiently general
- - not sufficiently original
- - other (explain)
Should the author be encouraged to revise and resubmit?
[ ] yes [ ] no
4) [ ] is unsuitable for publication, and should be rejected. The work it reports is:
[Delete all that do not apply (email) or check those that do]
- - not suitable for LLC
(a more relevant journal would be: ...)
- - already published in another journal or book
(publication details: ...)
- - naive
- - other (explain: ...)
Comments to be sent to the author
下面两家刊物对审稿人说的话也许对作者也有启发:
Applied Linguistics (Oxford):
The journal would like a recommendation as to whether you think the article
is:
a) publishable as it stands, or with minor revisions
b) recommended for publication, though with major rewriting
c) not recommended for publication but could be reconsidered following
substantial reworking
d) not recommended for publication in Applied Linguistics
Note that we now have four categories of adjudication, not three. We would
appreciate it if you could indicate, either in the main body of the review
or as a separate statement, the category (a, b, c or d) that in your
judgement best applies to this manuscript.
The journal welcomes articles on all aspects of applied linguistics, whether
theoretical or empirical papers, and whatever the choice of research
paradigm or methodology. We do however expect a paper to have high
standards of argumentation, implementation and reporting, with full and
relevant reference to the background literature; that its theme is
explicitly related to issues of principle and practice within the field; and
that it is accessible to a broad applied linguistic readership.
We would very much appreciate your detailed suggestions and comments -
whether positive or negative - on content and form. In cases where the
article is over the 9,000 word limit, we would also appreciate indications
as to where the author could make cuts to the manuscript. We have no
further format for readers' comments, but you might like to bear in mind
that they will be passed on to the author(s), both to explain our ultimate
decision, and to provide useful feedback. Reviewers' identity of course
remains anonymous.
As a means of providing reviewers with feedback on the articles you review
for the journal, it is our policy to share comments to authors among
reviewers after all reports are in. All comments remain anonymous, of
course. Please prepare your report with this in mind; if you have any
remarks for the editors' eyes only, identify them in a separate section as
"confidential to the editors." If you do not wish to participate in this
exchange of reports, please indicate this when you submit your report. A
list of reviewers is published in the final issue of each volume.
Literary and Linguistic Computing (Oxford)
Briefly, what is this paper about?
What are its major strengths and weaknesses?
What do you think its major contribution to the field of literary and linguistic computing would be, if it were published?
==========
EVALUATION
==========
This paper:
1) [ ] is acceptable more or less as it stands: [explain]
2) [ ] is basically acceptable, but needs more changes
before publication.
The paper is:
[Delete items that do not apply (email) or check
all that do.]
- - too long (list sections)
-- too short (explain what is missing)
- - badly expressed or organized
- - lacking in references to or awareness of related
work
- - too vague or woolly
- - other (explain)
3) [ ] reports interesting work, but is not suitable for publication in its present form because it is:
[Delete all that do not apply (email) or check all that do.]
- - a premature progress report
- - too vague and precise
- - not sufficiently general
- - not sufficiently original
- - other (explain)
Should the author be encouraged to revise and resubmit?
[ ] yes [ ] no
4) [ ] is unsuitable for publication, and should be rejected. The work it reports is:
[Delete all that do not apply (email) or check those that do]
- - not suitable for LLC
(a more relevant journal would be: ...)
- - already published in another journal or book
(publication details: ...)
- - naive
- - other (explain: ...)
Comments to be sent to the author
回复：[转帖]我搞定期刊的经验 [沉着][乐观][幸运]
看你们讨论的很热烈，我正好是做期刊的，就插两句话吧。
我做的《中国英语教学》由于没有国内刊号（努力申请中。。。），所以还是个内部刊物吧，多蒙各位老师的关爱，投稿量还可以（一年800－1000篇），投稿质量也越来越高。在一些学校和省份也算作核心期刊。按每期发表20篇左右，每年6期算，刊用率在15％左右吧。我们实行的是顺序三审制（而不是一般刊物通常采取的同时寄出三人审稿），每一审的结果都反馈给作者，所以流程特别长。各位如果有基于语料库的外语教学、二语习得方面的文章欢迎投过来呀。网址：www.celea.org.cn。我从大家的讨论中学到了不少，请继续讨论，如果大家知道本刊，能对本刊提有针对性的建议，就更好了。。。
看你们讨论的很热烈，我正好是做期刊的，就插两句话吧。
我做的《中国英语教学》由于没有国内刊号（努力申请中。。。），所以还是个内部刊物吧，多蒙各位老师的关爱，投稿量还可以（一年800－1000篇），投稿质量也越来越高。在一些学校和省份也算作核心期刊。按每期发表20篇左右，每年6期算，刊用率在15％左右吧。我们实行的是顺序三审制（而不是一般刊物通常采取的同时寄出三人审稿），每一审的结果都反馈给作者，所以流程特别长。各位如果有基于语料库的外语教学、二语习得方面的文章欢迎投过来呀。网址：www.celea.org.cn。我从大家的讨论中学到了不少，请继续讨论，如果大家知道本刊，能对本刊提有针对性的建议，就更好了。。。