I Have a Research Support System

"Xu Qiu, I have forwarded JMCA's review email, please check it." Chen Wanqing said:

"Reviewing is actually quite simple. Haven't you received three comments on your article before? Just comment in a similar way."

Xu Qiu nodded and opened the mailbox on the computer.

The latest email was from Chen Wanqing.

The email has been forwarded twice, and the title has changed to "Fw:Fw:..."

For most mail systems, forwarding an email will add a "Fw:" or "Fwd:" prefix to the subject;

Replying to an email will add a "RE:" prefix. If there are too many forwards or replies, there will be a long list in front of it.

Regarding this point, Teacher Wei has obsessive-compulsive disorder. As long as there are more than two colons in front, he will delete them until only one is left.

Xu Qiu clicked to open the email. There was no content in it, only an attachment file.

It is in PDF format and the file name is TA-ART-11-20xx-01xxxx.

After downloading the PDF file, create a new WORD document, copy the PDF file name, add a "_comments" suffix, and open the two files at the same time.

...

Start reviewing.

Before submitting articles, I read other people's comments for him, and this time it was finally his turn to review other people.

JMCA is a journal under RSC. Although it is in the second district, the grade is still above the middle of the second district, with an impact factor of about 10.

Chen Wanqing submitted her first article to JMCA, but was rejected immediately, and then switched to ACSAMI, which was also rejected.

However, there was a problem with a reviewer's opinion. After Mr. Wei appealed, it was miraculously accepted.

Xu Qiu first flipped through the PDF file from beginning to end, there are 28 pages in total.

The first page is the basic information of the submitted manuscript, including:

Journal name, JMCA;

Submission ID, which is the file name of the PDF file;

The type of article is Paper, which is similar to Article. Such articles are generally novel, with more content and longer length;

The date of submission is a few days ago;

Author list, a total of nine authors, each marked with the name of a specific school, department or research unit.

The first and ninth works are both from the University of Science and Technology of China, and it is basically certain that they are articles submitted by domestic peers.

The second page is the review requirements of JMCA.

First, I talked about how powerful the journal JMCA is, requiring articles to be very innovative and of high quality before they can be published on it;

Then they said that their rejection rate is about 80%, and the review time is 10 days. If there are special circumstances to extend the time, you can also talk to the editor.

Then there was an advertisement, click on the following link "

", and you can get a 25% discount on their paper journals.

Finally, the signature and contact information of the editor and editor-in-chief.

A whole page, mostly crap.

But Xu Qiu read it for the first time and was a little curious, so he read it carefully.

Successfully wasted five minutes.

Turn to the third page, it is Cover Letter.

Xu Qiu curiously asked Chen Wanqing:

"Didn't you say before that only editors can see this, no matter how reviewers can see it."

She tilted her head and said:

"Maybe JMCA is a special case. I review journals under Weily, but there is no such case."

All right, this is not a big problem, Xu Qiu no longer struggles with it.

The content after that is more than twenty pages of text and supporting information, displayed in a single column, without typesetting.

It's almost the same as the draft of the article written by himself, there is nothing special about it.

After reading the title and abstract, Xu Qiu preliminarily judged that the main novelty of this article was the synthesis of a new type of small molecule donor material.

However, it is worth noting that the donor material they made is a small molecule, rather than a common polymer material.

That is to say, their system is an all-small-molecule organic solar cell, because the acceptor material fullerene derivative PCBM is also a small molecule.

The all-small molecule system, which can be regarded as a branch in the field of organic photovoltaics, is relatively unpopular and not many people study it.

The main reason is that the performance of the device cannot be improved, and it is not as high as the system based on the polymer donor.

Sure enough, Xu Qiu took a look at their efficiency, it was only 6.8%.

But for scientific research, no matter how unpopular the field is, there are always people doing it.

...

Reviewing manuscripts is slightly different from reading literature at ordinary times.

If you usually read the literature, you can read all the lines at a glance and only pick the useful places to read, but the reviewer must read the full text carefully, after all, you have to put forward your opinions.

Xu Qiu spent about an hour reading the article twice.

He read it quickly the first time, and didn't see anything wrong with it, so he read it again.

The overall feeling is that the article is fairly fluent. It should not be written by a novice, or the article has been carefully revised by a veteran. Xu Qiu only found a few writing mistakes.

Moreover, the characterization and testing are complete, and each picture is processed well.

So, here comes the problem.

First of all, you must set the general tone before you can write specific review comments.

Is it a negative opinion or a positive opinion?

Specifically, is it recommended to reject the manuscript, modify it, or accept it directly?

There is nothing wrong with the expression of this article, so it is necessary to judge the efficiency of this new material with 6.8%, and what level it is in the field of all small molecule organic photovoltaics.

All small molecules are different from what Xu Qiu is doing now, but Mr. Wei will still show him these documents, because they are still a bit of a side.

There are not many articles published in this field, and he has only seen a few recently.

Although it was only a rough scan and I didn't read the content carefully, there are still some impressions in my mind about important information such as efficiency.

The current highest efficiency in this field is about 9%. He remembers that the article with the highest efficiency was posted on AM.

From this point of view, with an efficiency of 6.8%, it is reasonable for them to issue a JMCA.

Now, the big tone is set—positive opinion.

So, is it recommended to modify or accept it directly?

Xu Qiu thought for a while, after all, it was the first time reviewing the draft, so it was a bit perfunctory to ask them to pass the draft directly?

It's better to pick out some faults and let them change it.

Imitating the review comments received before, he changed the content in the abstract of the article:

"The author et al. have developed a new type of small molecule donor material, this material... and solar cell devices based on this material have a maximum efficiency of 6.8%.

I recommend that this article be published in this journal if the contributor considers the following suggestions:

On page 14, line 28, there is a typo, xx should be changed to xxx. "

There is only one suggestion, which seems a bit too thin, let's look for the problem again.

After half an hour, he finally added three more sentences:

"The light absorption spectrum graph, the vertical axis is not the light absorption coefficient, it is recommended to normalize.

The EQE external quantum efficiency spectrum lacks a relevant description, and it is recommended to add a description.

On the GIWAXS picture, the font of the horizontal and vertical coordinates is too small to read clearly. It is recommended to enlarge it. "

Xu Qiu racked his brains to figure out these three points, and it feels a bit nitpicking.

He couldn't help but wonder, is it possible to deliberately leave some small loopholes when writing an article for the reviewers to pick out?

However, doing so is a bit of a trick.

In case the reviewers see the article and feel that the article is full of loopholes and directly reject the manuscript, then they will play off.