I Have a Research Support System

Xu Qiu was in a corner of the classroom, operating a laptop and logging into the school mailbox.

Not long after, he received two emails forwarded by Wei Xingsi, which were the review comments of "Joule" and AM.

Xu Qiu first opened the review comments of the "Joule" review, and browsed it roughly.

There are three reviewers in total, and all the opinions issued are positive, and the opinions given by the editor are minor changes.

Among them, the first reviewer's opinion is "suggest that the article be published directly".

At the same time, he also sang praises and praised the contributions of Xu Qiu and Wei Xingsi to the field of organic photovoltaics, saying: "The development of the ITIC series is of great significance..."

In fact, the other party just changed a passage in Xu Qiu's "Joule" article that judged the work of his group, and then posted it.

From the point of view of the text, the reviewer should be a domestic researcher.

Xu Qiu speculates that he may have benefited from the ITIC series of materials, and has read a few articles. Therefore, I would like to thank the original author, but I can't tell who it is.

The second reviewer, who is obviously also a domestic researcher, reviewed the manuscript in a template style, first commenting on a paragraph, and then listing suggestions in sections.

However, there is only one suggestion this time, which is to kindly point out that "the citations in the article are not complete", and attach the DOI numbers of the three suggested citations.

Xu Qiu checked these three documents, and two of them were published in the new journal Solar RRL.

This new journal is a journal under Wiley that specifically collects photovoltaic-related articles. When the AM submission was rejected in the previous group, it was suggested to transfer to this journal. Naturally, Wei Xingsi did not transfer to this journal at that time.

At the same time, this journal is estimated to be in the second or third district. I don’t know if there is a chance to go to the first district. It is not in the literature search database in the group for the time being.

The other one is the latest CM article. When Xu Qiu wrote the review before, this CM had not been published, so it was not included in the review article.

The corresponding authors of the three articles are all Bao Yuanyou from Jinghang University, so there is a high probability that the reviewer is also Bao Yuanyou.

Xu Qiu inserted all these three documents into the corresponding positions in the review article, but the content of the main text was not added, that is, the corresponding text description was not supplemented.

Because this review is mainly about the work in Wei Xingsi's group, the work of other research groups, except Xu Zhenghong's IDTBR was singled out for a few words, the rest of the work is not necessary to mention.

Moreover, general researchers don't care whether you have written about their work in the review, but mainly whether you have cited their articles.

No way, who made the number of citations generally valued in the scientific research circle, both domestically and abroad.

Xu Qiu's specific handling method is as follows:

Original text: "...In addition, there are some researchers who have done similar work [7-10]."

After revision: "...in addition, there are some researchers who have done similar work [7-13]."

Three more references were added, but the citation numbers were changed from [7-10] to [7-13].

Of course, the problem is that the order of the subsequent documents is all messed up and needs to be rearranged again.

If it is Wei Xingsi, when a reviewer suggests citing a document, he will not cite a document that is not in his own literature reading library under normal circumstances, unless the article really must be cited.

In other words, he will only cite the relatively high-grade CM, and will not cite the other two Solar RRL.

Wei Xingsi believes: "The reviewers have the right to make suggestions, and the authors of the article also have the right not to accept the suggestions, as long as they can come up with reasonable reasons. The editors have their own judgments, and they will not rely solely on the opinions of the reviewers. Decide on an article."

However, Xu Qiu was kind-hearted (congxin?), so he didn't pick and choose, and quoted them all.

The third reviewer is likely to be a foreigner.

The review comments are written "casually", with many colloquial expressions.

At the beginning, I also praised the work of Xu Qiu and Wei Xingsi's ITIC series, and called the work of this series "BIG break through (big breakthrough)".

This is also an expression that some crooked nuts like. When expressing emphasis, they change the entire word into capital letters.

If domestic emphasis is expressed, the form of written expression is to draw two dots below the word, but this is relatively rare, and it may only be found in Chinese textbooks, usually using "", or even 【】.

Afterwards, the reviewer also made some very specific comments, which seemed to be a bit of a thought, and he thought of what to say, not the kind of itemized list, and so on:

"Authors, why don't you talk about how you came up with the structure of ICIN?"

"What do you think is the similarity and difference between the ICIN unit and the similar Raodanine structure? What is the difference in performance between the two?"

"What do you think is the efficiency limit in the field of organic photovoltaics in the past three years?"

"..."

Although there are many and complicated problems, fortunately, they are all minor problems, and they can be regarded as helping to supplement the quality of the article and make the article more perfect.

In fact, this is also the original intention of establishing peer review in the scientific research circle, that is, to improve the quality of published papers.

But I don’t know when it started, it has changed a bit. The current peer reviews often criticize each other’s work, picking bones from eggs...

However, if you think about it carefully, this is actually a problem that must be faced in the development and growth of a field.

In the very beginning, a small group of enthusiasts usually gather together to form an organization. Inside the organization are like-minded people who basically generate electricity for love. They don’t care so much about profit and loss, and their goals are also highly consistent.

As the organization grows, the threshold is gradually lowered, and newcomers are continuously recruited. The quality of the newcomers varies, and everyone has their own demands, which leads to a deviation from the original appearance in the development process.

Take the scientific research circle as an example. In the early days, there was a small group of rich people. After they lived a life of feasting and debauchery, they wanted to find some spiritual pursuits, so they began to conduct various scientific researches purely for hobbies. Not for fame and fortune.

But now the threshold for doing scientific research is very low, and scientific research itself has gradually evolved into a profession, a job.

Similarly, in the small, broken websites, or in the early Internet communities, all the elites who are interested in new things can be contacted, and the threshold is very high.

At that time, Bihu was not "Quihu", and they were all serious science popularization and sharing.

But now it's either "people are in Proxima Centauri, just got off the spaceship, and earn 100 million cosmic coins in seconds", or it's various marketing accounts, which are very hostile and start wars at every turn.

There is only the hot list left to look at and learn about recent news.

Xu Qiu was typing while listening to the class.

When the bell rang for the end of get out of class, he had already finished revising the text of "Joule" and wrote the opinion reply document. After checking it, he sent it to Wei Xingsi directly by email, and then got up and went to the cafeteria.

In the afternoon, Xu Qiu started to work on another AM article on "translucent devices".

There are two reviewers here, and the final opinion is a minor change.

Although the opinions of the two reviewers were all positive, they raised a lot of questions and it was a little troublesome to deal with them.

Two experiments need to be supplemented, one is "Colour Rendering Index Evaluation of Translucent Devices", which requires the use of an instrument that is not in the group, a colorimeter.

A colorimeter is an instrument used to measure the color and color difference reflected by objects (paper, etc.), measure the ISO brightness (blue light whiteness R457) and the fluorescent whitening degree of fluorescent whitening materials, measure CIE whiteness, etc....

The functions are relatively rich, and it is also widely used in papermaking, printing, ceramics, chemicals, textile printing and dyeing, building materials, grain, salt making and other industries.

Xu Qiu had read articles about translucent devices in other research groups that used this test before, but because he didn’t have any instruments in his group, he planned not to measure it at that time to see if he could get past it, but he voted for AM. If there are some loopholes, they will be caught by colleagues.

This kind of equipment problem can only be solved by Wei Xing. If he can find a way and the test is not troublesome, he can test it directly, but if it is troublesome, he can only find a reason to prevaricate it.

Another experiment to be supplemented is relatively simple. The reviewers are more concerned about the visible light transmittance (AVT) value of a single electrode, a separate effective layer, and the overall translucent device.

In fact, Xu Qiu has done this experiment in the simulation laboratory, mainly for himself, so that he can have a general impression of the light loss caused by each part of the device, but he has never done it in reality.

But it's not a big problem, just make up one now.

Xu Qiu directly controlled Mo Wenlin remotely and sent her an instruction to start the experiment. She still shared this article.

Also, the reviewers had some other questions.

For example, a reviewer is curious about the processing technology of translucent devices and asks about the specific processing technology, because they have tried similar preparation conditions before, but the experiment failed in the end.

In the two classes in the afternoon, Xu Qiu corrected all the points that could be changed in the review comments of the AM article, and the rest were only two experiments that needed to be supplemented.

In the evening, Xu Qiu returned to Caiyi and went to 218, intending to discuss with Wei Xingsi about the colorimeter.

He just walked to the door of 218 and was about to knock on the door, but Wei Xingsi suddenly opened the door from the inside, both of them were startled by the other party.

After two seconds, Wei Xingsi slowed down and said, "We have accepted the article of "Joule"! We just received an email from the editor."

"So fast." Xu Qiu raised his eyebrows. This speed can be called the speed of light. He only sent back the comments on the article at noon, and the article was accepted in the evening.

Of course, it is also expected. Based on the opinions of these three reviewers, the editor can actually choose to receive the article directly without modifying it. It is understandable that the minor changes will be made in seconds.

Xu Qiu couldn't help but think of the other article "Nature·Energy", which was voted in first, but the comments haven't even come back yet.