Many master's and doctoral students are very distressed when submitting core journals
North Core and South Core
are the two big mountains that press on their shoulders
And the invisible pressure from their instructors
is the third big mountain that lingers
What are you worrying about?
Firstly, has no experience, especially for master's students
In addition to writing a graduation thesis
There is no experience in thesis writing
Secondly, There is no guidance , it is easy to go off topic when writing
Paper writing requires systematic training
However, colleges and universities generally do not have paper writing courses
Third, has no patience and confidence
Core journals The requirements for articles are very high
The topic selection is novel, the logic is strict, the format...
Many students will be hit by the rejection notice and lose their confidence in submission
Since the instructor said that the core
must be published, it will be a headache. You have to send it out even though you are going through fire and water
Otherwise the instructor can just move his fingers
Postponing graduation is not a trivial matter
No experience? No guidance? Destroyed your confidence in submitting articles?
Don’t worry!
Which papers will be rejected at first sight ?
Which papers can be polished and polished with and can also be published as ?
Which papers are "Chosen Papers" in the eyes of editors? The perspective of
core editor will take you flying!
"I'm sorry, I want to reject the manuscript"
Which writing elements in the paper are the editors who cannot bear it anymore and reject the manuscript because they don't want to tolerate it anymore? I hope everyone will pay attention to these extremely low issues.
The editor has something to say:
, format issues
Generally journals will have an official website, which contains the journal introduction, journal purpose, fixed columns and submission instructions. authors need to understand this information. If the manuscript is rejected for this reason, it would be a bit unfair.
, data
The data in the paper must be true and reliable , even the decimal points must be marked correctly. If the reviewer sees that there is a problem with your data reasoning, they will think that the content of the entire paper is not rigorous. Therefore, you must maintain a correct and serious attitude when writing papers, and do not make up random things. Note: academic papers are not novels.
. The abstract is a mess
In the era of fragmented reading, abstracts are more important than ever. Sometimes this "fragment" is exactly the only thing the reader sees, and it is our only chance to convince them to download the full text of the paper. The importance of the abstract is self-evident, will you still deal with it?
4. Do not pay attention to references
References must be "complete", "new" and "accurate".
First, the reference cited is too old. Generally speaking, it is acceptable within 5 years. However, if the number of documents within 5 years is very small, or the field does not change quickly, it can be expanded to 10 or 15 years.
The second is that the number of references cited is very small or very large. Generally, review articles in domestic journals mostly have 20-30 references. If the author's article is highly original, it is better to have no more than 10 references.
The third reason is inappropriate reference citation. You should be careful when marking references.
In addition to the above micro-level issues, there are also some macro-level issues.
5. There is no outline and the structure is not rigorous.
The arrangement and structure of the paper are unreasonable, the chapter setting is not logical, the traces of patchwork are obvious, or the writing is off-topic. Before writing a paper, you need to conceive the overall structure of the paper in your mind, and then write it down. After the outline is written, fill in the details carefully.
6. Insufficient innovation
This article is simply the "invisible killer" of paper rejection. Novelty is one of the most important criteria for editors of scientific journals. It’s okay to come up with new insights, new methods, or raise questions.
7. Unreasonable logic
It is obvious that the descriptions in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion parts of the article are inconsistent.
Seeing this, you might as well take a look at the papers you submitted before
to see which part of the editing in the above questions has been touched
Next time, I will continue to talk about those papers that can be salvaged after modification
