文章刚投就收到审稿邀请并不意味着没戏了。人家需要大量引用，但是直接放在审稿意见里面怕编辑觉得不爽，给你私下说一下，这样你俩都好，他增加了引用，估计是申请绿卡用，你文章基本不会被拒，大家心照不宣，何乐而不为呢？而且给你开辟了一跳路子，以后投这个杂志就找他当审稿人，继续引他文章，还是容易中。
如何查找审稿人？ 现在Elsevier的很多期刊要求推荐2～3名审稿人，有些期刊规定你推荐的审稿人必须是你所在国家之外的。你的论文是否最终能送到你所推荐的审稿人那里去评审，这取决于主编的取舍，所以你所推荐的审稿人，只能说是Potential Reviewer。即使推荐了referees，你的稿子也未必就被送他们手中去审。虽然这次推荐在你身上不一定派上用场，但编辑把它们输入专家资料库，以后外国人投稿，他就找你选的中国人名字审稿。
一般你把文章发过去，一礼拜之后杂志社会要求你交纳一定款值的审稿费（一般中文期刊是交纳100元审稿费）。
这看你发布在哪里？上面有没有明确的规定可以提供稿费？现在有很多平台机构都在接受投稿,稿费也是从几百到几万不等。如果平台录用了你的文章。并且明确规定是有稿费的。你一定会收到稿费。若没有明确规定，那么就一定没有。至于版面费的话，一般是没有的。除非是你自己自费出版。所以在投稿之前一定要注意看。平台是否提供稿费？
在回复审稿人意见的时候，诚恳的态度非常关键，最好可以附上一个新的cover letter。当你不同意审稿人的意见时，你可以说“Thank you for your We understand your concern about XXX However, because YYY To make this clearer we have changed ZZZ on page/line XX”首先站在审稿人的角度上去肯定审稿人的意见，然后客观的指出文章的原意，并且做出具体解释。从另一个角度来看，既然审稿人都理解错了，其他的读者更有可能，说明文章的表达还是需要改进的。建议对相关的句子重写，尽量表述得更加清晰。在这里我们也分享一些常见的回复审稿人模板供题主参考：当你同意审稿人意见时，可以这样写：Thank you for your We agree with your suggestion to XXX, because YYY We have made changes to ZZZ on page/line XX as you 回复重点要包括以下几项：Thank the reviewerSay that you agree and explain whyDescribe the changes you madeIndicate where you made the changes当你不同意或对审稿人意见持怀疑态度时，可以这样写：Thank you for your We understand your concern about XXX However, because YYY To make this clearer we have changed ZZZ on page/line XX另外还有一些常见的回复审稿人意见的表达形式，如：你心里想的： You just didn't understand what we wrote!实际写：Some statements that we made were slightly ambiguous; we have clarified the text你心里想的：That experiment would take forever!实际写：The suggested experiment is very interesting; however, we feel that it is beyond the scope of our study你心里想的：You didn’t even read what we wrote!实际写：We did not intend to indicate ‘XYZ’ and have therefore altered the text to specify ‘PQR’你心里想的：You are being too picky about grammar and formatting实际写：We apologize for the errors and have made the suggested changes
说自己“没时间”也可;说自己不熟悉稿件领域,恐不能胜任,也可。 对审稿请求装聋作哑,置之不理是最恶劣的行径,会耽误该稿件的整个处理进程。这种情况会给编辑工作带来极大的麻烦，如果一个人屡屡如此表现，会上杂志的黑名单。这样，此后只要有此人作为共同作者的投稿论文，都会被秒拒，后果很严重！对审稿请求装聋作哑,置之不理是最恶劣的行径,会耽误该稿件的整个处理进程，这种情况会给编辑工作带来极大的麻烦说自己不熟悉稿件领域,恐不能胜任,也可
�皇嵌晕颐钦庑┬〉ノ坏娜司涂嗔耍�蛭�悴蝗鲜端�牵�膊豢赡苁撬�堑难��Ｄ阒挥小⒅荒芡ü�岣咦约何恼轮柿坎鸥�谢�帷；褂芯褪锹���省⑿��,但目前因为杂志生存的原因，较之以前速度可能也都快起来了，也甚至还有些只要给钱就收的杂志，类似于西太平洋大学似的，这是卖文凭，人家就是卖文章的，当然我想大部分杂志还是能够“客观、公正”进行稿源选择吧，但愿吧。 那SCI杂志又是如何审稿呢，相反应该更“客观”，至少不会歧视你是来自无名的单位，就受邀于几个杂志作为其审稿人来说，绝大部分都采用同行审稿（peer-review），也即邀请你审稿的文章多半是与被邀请人所作的研究相似，这就不存在一定是所谓的“牛人”来审了。与你的职称完全没有关系，不是说教授就有资格，而初级就没有资格被SCI杂志邀请审稿杂志社一般都会通过你发表文章找到你的email（我想应该是这样的，所以通讯更牛叉啊，否在人家不会邀请到你的） 当然你也可以拒绝，因为毕竟不是所有的文章我们都有能力去审的，至少我还没那水平，也曾拒绝过一篇关于基因分析的（虽然了解一些，但很难把握）如你接受后，则会自动连接到审稿人页面（如下），除了author centre外，同时也有reviewer centre的页而一般如果没有被邀请审稿，通常进入作者系统后，只会有anthor centre接下来就是审稿了，这篇文章是国内某F教授为通讯的一篇关于血管紧张素在皮肤中作用的综述，毕竟人家在国内还是相当的啊，也是顺便学习了一下，可一下载稿件一看，怎么看怎么不像综述，充其量是个mini review，四个段落，1198个字，26篇参考文献。既然杂志社邀请我审稿，也综述的我所做过的研究，却没引用我的文章，有点“失落”，更重要的是更多文献他们也没有引用，而是引用他们自己的“中文”文章,但还是认真的“分析”了此文。给出审稿意见如下：The review by *** et addresses the interesting and novel topic of the renin-angiotensin-system (RAS), which was originally described as a cardiovascular endocrine system, in skin physiology and Only in recent years, the cutaneous RAS has become an area of scientific interest, and the number of related publications is increasing from year to Therefore, it is indeed time for an article which reviews the existing literature up to However, this review has a number of 中国人语言每次都被审稿人发飙，我的也是，至少部分文章投出去审稿人也是要让我改进，唔，每次让我找个母语的人帮修改，我滴个汗，俺们中国人哪有以说英语母语的，索性每次都“忽悠”过去了，当然也许只是些小杂志的原因吧，语言真的需要提高、再提高。同样该综述，我也提出了我的部分语言意见 - Language editing is - The number of publications dealing with the RAS in skin is still not very Therefore, there is no need to focus this review article on the AT2-receptor (for which data are even more limited) Instead, this review should consider all published data about the cutaneous RAS - Many publications are For example: �6�1Min et , Endocrinology 2004 �6�1Nakai et , J Dermatol Sci 2008 �6�1Rompe et , Hypertension 2010 �6�1Steckelings et , (Exp Dermatol 2004) �6�1Yevdokimova et , J Dermatol Sci 2007 �6�1Morihara et , J Am Acad Dermatol 2006 �6�1Yahata et , J Biol Chem 2006 �6�1Takeda et , Am J Pathol 2004 并逐部分给予我的意见：Abstract:- In the case of AT1R-blockade, AT2R unmasking may indeed be important, but blockade of the AT1R thus interrupting AT1R-mediated actions of Ang II, is at least as The respective passage in the abstract is Introduction: - 3, line 13: “disorders of RAS”: A “disorder” of the RAS has so far only been described for scleroderma (not saying whether the deregulated RAS is a primary cause or only a secondary phenomenon) It is indeed likely that the RAS is deregulated in the other mentioned dermatoses as well, but this is pure speculation and should be discussed as - 3, line 19: “existence of RAS in skin”: References 2 and 3 demonstrate only the existence of receptors, but not of the whole RAS in Adequate references would be: Steckelings et , Exp Dermatol or Philips MI et , In: Saavedra J M, Timmermans P M W M, Angiotensin New York: Plenum Press, 1994: 377– - 3, line 20: “It has been documented…”: It is correct that AT2R upregulation has been demonstrated in skin, and it is also correct that Ang II has been shown to accelerate cutaneous wound However, it has never been shown that acceleration of wound healing by Ang II is mediated by the AT2R In fact, this is rather unlikely, since the AT2R acts anti- - Chapter II 1: Physiological receptor expression should be addressed prior to receptor expression in - p4, line 5 from bottom: “Ang II either…” Please add - chapter II 2: The high expression of Ang II receptors during foetal life indeed suggests a role in However, Ang II receptor knockout mice show no severe developmental deficits, in particular not in Furthermore, there are almost no data about what specifically the role of the AT2R in development may This should be - chapter II 3: This chapter is much too For example, the description of deregulated receptor expression in some dermatoses by Takeda and Kondo (Am J Pathol 2001, Br J Dermatol 2001 and 2002) has not been This chapter may further be the place for some speculations (based on data from non-cutaneous tissues) in which dermatoses the RAS may be - page 5, line 5: “Kawaguchi et al …in SSc fibroblasts, suggesting that… “: This is not a logical What is the causal link between AT2R in SSc fibroblasts and excessive ECM production? Furthermore, expression of AT2R has been shown by several authors for normal - page 5, line 12: Steckelings is a woman (“her” colleagues) - page 5, last section: The impact of AT2R expression on immune cells and of AT2R effects on vascularisation and neuroregeneration with regard to wound healing is not sufficiently - 6, 2 lines from bottom: “…restoring normality not only in the CV system but also in many tissues, such as ” Please provide a reference for the statement that the AT2R has been shown to restore normality in 最后提交时杂志社会有一个勾选表，该文被我拒了该文编辑在结合另一个审稿人意见的情况下还是reject此文了，从投稿到最后给出decision约6个星期，应该说是正常速度了。有意思的是中途，编辑发信催审稿了，估计是作者急着想知道结果，可以理解，想想之前的我们也何尝不是啊，每天都不停得刷屏，也写过催稿信，还以为没有用，甚至有时候也不“敢”写，因为害怕是否会有“反”作用，看来某些时候写信催催也还是可以的。总之，审稿也未必是件好差事，不过倒是可以知己知彼，可以站在审稿人的角度去思考我们自己在写文章的时候应该注意什么，别人文章的有哪些优点、缺点，我们都可以好好去总结，同时我们也获得与最新研究领域的接触也为以后研究，能够写作提供更多的思路。
国外审稿人是义务的，可以根据文章质量和自己的看法自由地提出意见和建议。国外审稿人绝大多数治学严谨，很注重reputation，可以说拿信誉当生命。当他们接到审稿要求时，如果很忙或不懂你的专业或领域，他们会decline。但只要答应审稿，一般都是尽职尽责的完成审稿任务。因此，当你接到审稿人的意见时，首先要摆正心态，保持冷静。不要用偏见的心态去断定审稿人有偏见、歧视。做研究的确很辛苦，发表文章也确实很不容易。但审稿人同样也很辛苦，也很不容易。他们认认真真地阅读你的文章，给你提出中肯的意见，甚至很好的建议。如果还被你措辞强硬的怪罪一阵，换着谁也会生气。要知道，找理由拒绝一篇文章并不是一件很难的事情。因此，这个时候，你一定要好好的静下心来，好好分析sci论文发表审稿人的意见，找出问题的所在。所有问题必须逐条回答;尽量满足意见中需要补充的实验;满足不了的也不要回避，说明不能做的合理理由;4。对于你不认同的意见，也要委婉有技巧地回答，做到有理有据有节;审稿人推荐的文献一定要引用，并加以讨论。
你是要回复通知文章被接受的邮件么？不用回的，按要求签版权转让协议然后等proof校样就是了。
首先绝对服从编辑的意见在审稿人给出各自的意见之后，编辑一般不会再提出自己的意见。但是，编辑一旦提出某些意见，就意味着他认为这是文章里的重大缺陷，至少是不合他的口味。这时，我们唯一能够做的只能是服从。因为毕竟是人家掌握着生杀予夺的大权。第二永远不要跟审稿人争执跟审稿人起争执是非常不明智的一件事情。审稿人意见如果正确那就不用说了，直接照办就是。如果不正确的话，也大可不必在回复中冷嘲热讽，心平气和的说明白就是了。
这是审稿人对语言不满意，就回复我们会找母语人士润色就可以了。我也遇到过这种情况，不过是期刊编辑的意见，还推荐了一家国外的润色公司，我嫌发邮件沟通太费事了，就找了国内的艾德思，半夜10点11点问问题仍然能回复⌄开发票也方便，润色质量的话，反正我返修稿编辑和审稿人没再提语言的事儿。