有
你是在光纤摇杆实验室做的项目吗？？？
SCI原刊上发表的论文都被SCI收录，扩展版的不一定
就是比中文杂志刊登更牛的~
这些都是检索系统，一个收录很多论文的数据库。 SCI主要偏重理论性研究。 SSCI是社会科学期刊数据库。 EI偏工程应用。 CSCD和核心期刊都是中国的数据库。 ISTP是会议论文数据库，以上都是期刊论文。
�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。
双方沟通好了就可以加。有些是可以直接在proof上加即可，但是有的上面会讲明不能更改authership，如果要改需要跟编辑联系，讲清楚为什么加的原因，新的authership是怎么样的。一般主编会要求：要加的话需要所有人签字发扫描件。不是proof来的时候就可以随便改动作者，一些小的改动不会有问题，但如果大改很有可能会被认为是学术不端行为。因此，该阶段能不改就不改。
有些是可以直接在proof上加即可，但是有的上面会讲明不能更改authership，如果要改需要跟编辑联系，讲清楚为什么加的原因，新的authership是怎么样的。 一般主编会要求：要加的话需要所有人签字发扫描件！ 格式可以参考下面： Dear Editor, Our manuscript was recently accepted to be published by the Journal of xxx without We are very glad to have a chance to publish in this Journal, and that we thank very much for your help in handling our However, we are aware that the author list is not Our colleague, xxx, has indeed contributed significantly to this manuscript by (work he done), which we carelessly We would just like to know whether it is possible to amend the author list now and have him added as one of the We would be happy to resubmit the copyright agreement if Please kindly consider our case and inform us how to Thank you very
首先你必须在相关的SCI期刊上发表过文章，最好是高水平的期刊其次，有人推荐你作为审稿人。比如有人投稿，他推荐你作为文章的审稿人
相关如下：学术生涯以来被数十个期刊邀请审过数百余篇/次的文章，publons统计验证的数据。有jacs、nature子刊，也有四区末流。拿过几个期刊的年度最佳审稿人奖。最大的感触是，伊朗印度巴基斯坦造假的、灌水的、一稿多投的，真tmd多。欧洲的关系稿真tmd多。相对而言，好期刊下审到的中美单位的稿子质量普遍最高。中国学者的文章不少创新性极高，但爱偷懒，经常会漏那么几个昂贵但重要的表征或control。美国单位学者普遍把有用的没用的数据都会补得很全，si洋洋洒洒几十甚至几百页，但不少是卖惨流，创新性一般。同一个期刊不同编辑对文章质量的把控尺度真是千差万别。以及审稿主观性其实很强，一篇文章不同审稿人能给出完全对立的评价，相当常见。而编辑一般都是以宁杀一千不放一百的心态，哪怕别的审稿人夸得有多高，只要有一个强烈的负面意见就会拒绝。高质量的文章里，投中一个好期刊在我看来只是概率问题。我个人审稿风格比较nice，看不明白的或者感觉逻辑不通的，都会提问并建议给修改机会，毕竟个中细节只有作者最清楚。当然除了那种一看就是错误的、谷歌之后发现抄袭的、一稿多投的、创新性极低的之外，我基本全部都建议编辑给修改机会。但我有个同事比较变态，只要他不懂的地方他都会偏执地认为是作者做错了，拒稿率高达95%以上（当然我极其瞧不起这位同事）。以及点名批评RSC旗下的Chem Common和Nanoscale，那里的个别编辑经常给审稿人发邮件说这是约稿不能拒。但文章明显有问题还不能提负面意见了？后来也就拒绝为这俩期刊审稿。私底下认识几个编辑，听过他们一些吐槽，大多认为来自欧洲的审稿人普遍审得很慢、倾向抬杠以及给负面意见。这和我每次开学术会议时的感觉是一致的：欧洲科学家比较喜欢在一些无关重要的细节上钻牛角尖，经常会表现出很明显的瞧不起别的同行的研究。所以后来我投稿时，也会在“opposed reviewer（规避的审稿人）”里尽可能写多几个方向相近的欧洲同行，能躲几个算几个。
很多人在质疑他的实力，认为他的实力不够，经验也不够，是没有办法进行审核的。